Justice

I think the "Oops! I forgot to make a point!" line is fairly prophetic and appropriate with these ones. For us to mistake that one for the real strip, we'd actually have to read the strip in the first place.

I think the best comparison would be to the Kings a while back when they just couldn't get past the Lakers: Talented and perhaps Cup-Worthy, but they just seem to lose it when it's all on the line. They always choke against Toronto for whatever reason.

Okay, I'll make my points without quoting to save time and space. On the article: It's decent, but there are few incentives. Once again, a reason is not an incentive to do something. An incentive is a reward of some kind, and there aren't many incentives to this type of work than "Doing the work of God" or the good old "77 Virgins" idea. Understand, when we are talking incentives, there are really none other. Not only this, but 'understanding' this Islam is not going to help us much in stopping it. It's an atmosphere that needs to be changed. Giving these people democracy, a chance to control their own future, to actually be free... isn't that doing something for them? We invaded Iraq, and we've been proceeding to both rebuild Iraq and give them a representative government. We aren't placing a 'dictator' there. We are trying to make up for past mistakes (Yes, that plays a part) and change it from being a place this form of Islam can breed. Already if you look at the 'insurgency', it's become more and more foreign fighters rather than just Iraqis. We can't just expect to try and 'understand' this and suddenly expect things to change. If it is our foreign policy, then what should we do? If we leave the region alone, we do nothing to stop it from propagating even more. Not only that, it makes it seem like we just run away from our past mistakes. We need to actively fix this region. When dealing with this type of ideology, that's the only way. I'm more of a 'Well, actually work to help them' rather than 'We need to understand what this is'. I think we understand what this is, and I think through a proactive policy of helping the Arab people by eliminating these cruel dictatorships and theocracies, we can do far more than we could ever do with meaningless 'goodwill diplomcacy'. On Fisk: First off, that article is more a 'sophistry' of exaggerated intelligence on the writer's part, considering the entire article speaks with with the condescension of the proverbial 'wizard in the Ivory Tower'. I wouldn't say he's accusing or justifying as much as critiquing, but he hardly uses phrases that Fisk does, and his accusations aren't nearly the same level. Saying we're 'paying the price for our help in Iraq' for something and saying 'Tony is partly responsible for these deaths' are a bit different in phrase, context, and tone. So, I'd that the other article is very much different in tone and phrasing than this. Once again, 'paying the price' isn't an ambigious phrase. It's different than just saying, "This is very much connected with our help in Iraq". It implies something. It implies a sense of justice being done. You can't say 'they're paying the price' without saying the price is justifiable. If that's 'the price', then you are accepting that fact. It's justified, because that's 'the price'. You don't say something like that unless you believe that is proper or fitting. There's no way around it: Fisk did justify those deaths by saying 'Well, we deserved 'em!' with his tone and phrasing. The above article, as foolish as I might think it, didn't. It's all in the context, tone, and phrasing. You really have to pay attention to all that, because it doesn't hurt your case of 'I don't justify this stuff!' He shouldn't have used it, and he should get flamed and criticized for using such blatantly stupid language. On the beliefs: They asked us to base in the 'Holy Land'. This wasn't something we did arbitrarily to piss people off. You have to understand to that to much of the 'slights' that we've made, there is a second side you are missing. In Palestine, we support Israel not only because it's the only democracy in the Middle East, but because they've been playing defense for so damn long. I think it was INXS who was angry that they took land during the 7 Days War, a war they were invaded and took land to set up defensive buffers against such a surprise attack. When we supported the Shah, we didn't him up, he was a leader we were friendly with. It's natural for a country to want to support someone who likes them. He was overthrown by religious fanatics based on this. In Iraq, we had to support someone in the Iraq/Iran War because we didn't want the religious fanaticism of Iran to spill over into Iraq. That was a very real risk, and we had to make a choice. It was a mistake in hindsight, but it was a choice that had to be made one way or the other. Same with Afganistan and the Russians. The problem with much of this is that while some of these are wrong, it's not the rationalization behind their hate. It's the 'open' rationalization, but the real reason is that their religious dogma is hateful, xenophobic, and only massively skews these events to suit their purpose. If we were to do anything in the Middle East, it could be easily modified to fit their needs. The mind of an Islamic Fundamentalist thinks in a much different, more absolute logic: It looks at what we do and immediately assumes it's a trick or slight against them. Every 'wrong' is magnified, every assistance is looked at as a western trick: Do you remember when they claimed that we had poison in the foodpacks we were dropping from the air? The very huge majority of those who take up arms are extremists. The idea that many are taking up arms against the US because of bad conditions is becoming more and more untrue as it's becoming apparent that foreign fighters are the great majority in Iraq, and many of the homegrowns are Baathists and local extremists. Many understand that while things are bad, we are working hard to improve things. We don't mean for any of this, it's simply a result of the insurgency slowing down their return to a stable government and economy. It is about jealousy of power. The Islamic Fundamentalist is a facist: He believes that he is superior because of something. In this case it's Islam. So how else can he explain why the Arab nations are so poor and the US and the West so rich? They assume that we've stolen it, that we've tricked them or are purposely keeping them down. He can't look at the real reasons: Corrupt dictatorships and theocracies, the denial of progress on behalf of the state, etc. It's all the fault of the West because, well, how could it be the fault of the Muslim world? Anything we do to one of these people is simply another control, a way of keeping them down. It's not rational at all. They do want that power, and they don't like the freedom we have: What state would possibly let Zionists of all people run around and assume positions of power? What people would let women dress the way they do, and let children run around listening to that horrid music? They want control, they want conformity, and they dislike seeing anyone doing something other than what they think. At the end of the day, they two main problems are "They are jealous of our power" and "They hate our freedom". We don't break it down as much as we should, but it's much more that than the superficial justifications of 'foreign policy'. Those are just to try and find a justification that others might believe. If you look at it closely, it lacks teeth, and hopefully one day you'll be able to see that. We've made our mistakes in the Middle East. But the blame for this hate solely lies in the Middle Eastern leaders for preying upon it and using it to sustain their power. The only way to stop the cycle is to stop these leaders, and that is what we are trying to do.

Uh, right now we haven't been surrounded and asked to surrender by the Iraqi Army, so I'd say we are doing primo good. This is worlds above anything the UN has ever done as a group. Yeah. There's really nothing we can do. The US and Britain are the best choices for security forces bar none at moment, and we really can't pull out until we are sure things are stable and can remain so for an indefinite period of time.

Fair enough. I was hung up on 'Fundamental' because that's the only rights I really think of when I think of the Constitution. They are what make up the basic necessities of America, and while there are others that might not be there exactly (Privacy), abortion is too specific as a right, too controversial, and just doesn't belong with anything as a right. It's more of a practice and priviledge. I don't even connect it with privacy. It's more of something that falls under public health, and it should be handled by the states how ever they see fit. It just doesn't make sense to try and put something in stone that changes so damn often, and every time I've read anything on abortion it just becomes more and more a mistake the Court never should have gotten involved in. And on other comments: I personally object to abortion. But I understand it's not my decision, it's the people's and the states themselves. I'd just like to see the Constitution stay the heck away from all this mess, though. Well, our main miscommunication was that I don't like using the 9th for just anything, and abortion is not one of those exceptions. You took that as 'it's not there, it doesn't count'. I'm not a strict Constitutionalist, and there are times where I like to fudge things. But when it comes to deciding federal rights, I really don't like fucking around and putting in just anything. I prefer most things to stay in the hands of the people because SCOTUS decisions can be very debillitating to any changes that might arise in a constantly changing subject.

"Do you know what abortion is? You don't even know what Article 8, Section 1 of the Constitution is!" And, to be frank, you have great confusion on what a strict constitutionalist is. I'm not one, yet you keep trying to peg me as one and use that as an argument agaisnt me, which is extremely fucking frustrating when one is trying to explain one's view. *Calms down* Okay, moving on. Okay, okay, here we go. The entire problem that I have with the current view on Abortion is that it, right now, is based simply on the idea of precedent. The court has admitted it wasn't a good decision, and it's only held on the idea that "We got it wrong, but we need to keep it to hold up jurisprudence". That's why don't consider it a real right: Because the only decision that still upholds it does so not to protect it's own rights, but moreso to protect precedent. I've cited all my argument ot make you understand that it's not completely out there to believe that it's covered as a State's issue. If you'd listen and really considered my arguments rather than just trying to push them down or peg me as an 'OMG STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST!', I wouldn't be so combative. I'm not Harlan Black. But. I do see necessary dangers in the mis- and over-uses of the 9th Amendment for anything that isn't something 'ingrained and fundamental to our society'. Anyone who simply tries to claim that something is a right through use of the 9th needs to find more grounding than that. I support the right to individual privacy within one's own home, which is understandable under the 9th. But the right to privacy today is utter crap and needs to be seriously revised. This is why I was pissed you. I never cared whether it was legal or not. I hate it being talked about as a 'fundamental right', which it isn't. I'd like to think that we have a bit better standards on what constitutes something fundamental to American Life. It's not Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Abortion, is it?

"It's cool under the 9th Amendment!... Uh, that's all I got." No it doesn't. I've said that the 9th Amendment shouldn't be used willy-nilly to cover anything and everything we want it to. Example: Under your current logic, gambling would be a fundamental right. It's your money, which you should be able to spend privately without the government regulating it. A great quote from Justice Goldberg The 9th doesn't include or cover everything. Abortion isn't 'deeply-rooted' in our society. It's not a 'right so basica and fundamental' that it has to be a Constitutional right. What you are arguing is that anything can be a Constitutional right if we want it to be. I'm saying that's a misuse of it, and that to do something like that is infringing on other key areas of the Constitution when it comes to something like abortion, most visible being I'm not even a strict constitutionalist, you fucking moron! I, though, like many, don't believe that the 9th was intended to just simply create rights whenever we wanted to, and that to just simply say 'It's okay, the 9th covers anything we want!' is childish. I believe that abortion is covered under police powers, which are granted under the 10th Amendment no matter what fucking view of the Constitution you hold. I feel that this entire thing is a matter of the individual states, and not a right of the individual. It isn't beyond reproach, and it is something that should be handled by the states. I've provided case law that would argue the same thing, showing that Abortion can be regulated by states, and that the States ARE allowed to decided when conception begins (It held up because the state didn't ban it, only merely cut off state funding for it), and that States DO have the final say in right to life and death. I don't know how many times I can express that, and how many times it will take for it to get through your thick skull. If it's not alive, than what is it? Is there some other state that I'm missing here? Because inanimate objects can't turn animate. So something that isn't alive is dead, correct? But hey, perhaps we should bring up Article 8 for no other reason than to try and distract everyone from a losing argument.

I mentioned Section 8, Article One because said I was arguing against the STRICT CONSTRUCTIONIST VIEWPOINT. I wasn't attempting to use that particular clause to justify the legalization of abortion. Okay, so you spout off crap. I've never ignored Art 8, and I don't see why I would. But hey, I guess when you don't really have any other argument, you gotta say anything you can... But it doesn't HAVE to cover everything. You lack the ability to notice ambiguity. Just because it isn't there doesn't mean it's necessarily still covered by the 9th Amendment, lest everything would be a fundamental right. ... You are a fucktard. It gives the State's police powers over the general welfare, which covers health, which covers abortions. It allows the State to regulate them as such they decide. And while I'm not exactly a strict Constitutionalist, the 10th does give any powers that aren't strictly held by the Federal Government, thus including health care and, oddly enough, abortion. So please, shut up. You don't even know what a strict Constitutionalist SHOULD believe. It isn't rational to say that something you can't prove is dead doesn't get the rights of the living. You can't prove it's dead, so why must we treat it as such? Welcome to the grey area I was talking about this entire time. You can't prove it's dead, I can't prove it's alive. To try and make a fundamental right without the absolute assurance that it doesn't automatically infringe on something else's right immediately invalidates it. To make an exact judgement and a Constitutional right on something so flimsy is foolish. It should be left up to debate, which is why the States should have it.

You make no sense. Article 8, Section 1 would make sense if Congress had acted in some way, but they haven't. So what are you trying to say here, that Abortion is a right because Congress is supposed to provide to the General Welfare? But it doesn't confirm it's existance at all, either. The 10th rules it out because it makes it a State's issue, thusly it is enumerated to the duty of individual states under the Police Powers. It's not undefined, you just simply ignore where it is. Because you can't prove that it doesn't, you can't create a right that intrinsically infringes on another. It's not a fundamental right because it automatically infringes on one's right to live (Since it can't be proven it isn't living), which immediately invalidates it.

... ... ... ... WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!? There's no fundamental right that allows you a driver's license, but you still are allowed, to aren't you? There are way too many things out there that are not rights in any real sense of the word that are still legal. BINGO! It shouldn't be a fundamental right. Thank you. The only reason Abortion is still a right is not because of privacy, but because of precedent. Casey v. PP of S Penn is basically an admission of that mistake, but holding it up due to precendent.

Is Congress deciding this? Is any of this a Congresional Decision? No. Please, please, please stop trying to read the Constitution. Because nothing in Sec 8, Art 1 supports your idea in any way. Unless you are trying to argue federal power over general welfare, which is actually a concurrent power of the state as well. And, considering CONGRESS has nothing to do with the current situtation, since we are talking about the Supreme Court of the United States at moment making a decision, this is essentially useless.

Yes, yes they did. Read any summary of it. They don't ignore it, they say there's no concrete evidence that says that You don't know what your talking about because I never said abortion wasn't legal. I'm only arguing that it's not a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. Whether or not abortion is legal does not affect my argument in any way as long as the States are the one making it legal and regulating it as they see fit. And you wonder why it's not ... *Sigh* Look, this is fairly easy. I'll try to explain it WITHOUT USING ANY BIG WORDS (OMG!). I don't care if it is legal or not. My personal choice is no, but that's just me. What I'm saying is that that the Constitution is not something that can be applied to Abortion, nor can Abortion be applied to it. It is the domain of the States to handle such matters dealing with health, and it is theirs to decide and regulate. There is no fundamental right to abortion guarenteed in the Constitution, nor is there a conclusive ban on abortion. Texas argued for a ban hence the dismissal of the 14th amendment argument. I argue that there's nothing in the Constitution that would say anything about abortion at all, and that there is no right or wrong one way or the other mentioned in the Constitution. All the case law I've stated (Which you've cleverly ignored, for the most part) that it's the States themselves that have ultimate control over this, and that is more and more becoming the reality of things from decisions. All in all, I say that the Constitution need be left out of this useless argument and leave it to the polticians and state legislators to decide the laws around this. Is that simple enough for you to understand?

Yeah. I only say 'what's alive?' because it deals with the idea of 'You can't have right infringing upon others'. You can't have a right that raises that question with it's very existance. Whatever people want to do is whatever they want. I just want it to be with the States rather than anywhere else, because public health is their domain. Abortion, for or against, has little to nothing to do with the Constitution.

You idiot. You still don't get it, do you? They didn't ignore it. They said that it hadn't been applied in any unconstitutional way in the statues. It's not that they ignored it, it's that the State can declare that. It simply said that it was within the bounds of the restriction of abortion thus applied towards Roe. You know shit about case law, and it shows. It was still said and established, but it being used to justify the laws wasn't concrete and thusly You didn't question whether they held up the right to life, dumbass. You asked for anything that allowed a state to say so. Remember: Whoops! Look, I just did. The Court upheld the line as within the state's power, and said that it didn't influence the restrictions in any concrete way. So please, shut up. You don't know what the hell you are talking about. It's not that Abortion is legal or not. I don't care about that. I personally don't like it, but whatever. It's not a Constitutional Right. As many times as I can say it, it's not a Constitutional guarentee, nor should it ever be. It is the decision of a state to regulate abortion however they want. That is the right place for it to be. That's what my entire argument is about, yet you seem too dense to grasp that simple concept. It's not a place for the federal government, but the State. On your quote from Blackmun: Almost all of Roe was thrown out in Casey, including the Trimester system. Roe today hardly qualifies as anything substantive in an argument. It kept the idea of abortion free, but much of the original decision is useless since so much of it hinged on a trimester system. Thank you for bringing up the point that proves my idea: The idea of when life is created is not entirely sure. Thusly, your idea that it's a 'bag of tissues' doesn't apply as there is still the very real chance that it was alive, and a 'right to privacy', held in the loosest manner, is insufficent to override that right to life. You can't have your rights override anothers.

Wow. So it really doesn't have to be true to be made law. And that, I think, is where a lot of people get the heebie-jeebies about letting states decide possible life and death matters. Or government at all, but at least the higher governments appeal to a larger variety of constituents. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> *Shrugs* It's easier to change state law than some so-called 'fundamental' right. It should be decided in legislatures and other places as such, so it can be changed and modified if needed.

AW GAWD MY BRANE HURTZ. Everything that doesn't have the ability to declare it's intentions for life and death is protected by the state? Great, now I'm going to have to deal with the state when I want to put my cat to sleep. And don't tell me something like that won't come up, because that kind of strict unconditional "in all cases" law is the kind of thing that's an easy target for those who want to abuse, exploit, and expand powers. I see it exactly as I do animals, actually. I accept it but only when it's done as humanely as possible. That's why I don't support PBAs, nor do I support taking Yeller out back and blasting him with the shotgun. In the case of abortions, when it's too late in the pregnancy to go with the humane method, that's when I say "You fucked up, now you'll pay the price." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jobber: Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990). It basically says there is no 'right to die'. Whether you want to believe that or not, that's their take on the subject, which is why you should take the 15 minutes out of your life to fill out a Living Will. Hell, I have a copy in one of my law textbooks. You want me to scan and send it to you? My main argument, if it isn't clear (Which is possible), is that whether or not you are for or against abortion, it is hardly a fundamental Constitutional Right. The case law simply doesn't support that sort of conclusion, and because this is an ever-changing debate that has little in the way of actual Constitutionality, it should be handled by states instead.

Exactly. How can you form a right around something that very well could be endangering someone's right to life? It's moronic. You can't form a right around something that is that subjective and unknown. Uh, the fetus's organs are their owns. Why can't you understand that the entire argument isn't about 'your organs', it's about the possibility of a life being inside you and whether or not it's the state's duty to protect that life? Lemme state this again: You can't overrule someone else's rights with your own. Your 'right' to privacy, or her 'organs' does not overrule the right to someone else's life. Thusly, you can't have a 'constitutional right' based around something that intrinsically steps on someone else's rights. I get laid, I just make sure I minimize risk. I know people who have told me how brutal that decision is, and personally I wouldn't want to put someone through that. And your dumb. What's new? If you've read the Kelo decision, then you'd agree. Tenth Amendment grants police powers to the State, of which include health and other such things that fall under the idea of 'the General Welfare'. It's why states can hold hospitals to health standards among other things. The State dictates what is safe and what should be restricted, thusly abortion would fall under their control and protection. Not only this, but Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) basically states that one person can not say another wants to die without 'clear and convincing evidence' that that's what the person wants. It basically protects the State's protection of life if they see it, and gives them the power to strictly regulate anything like this as they see fit. It completely dismisses any privacy claims to such a decision on someone else's life. (Which is why people need to fill out Living Wills when they can to prevent this stuff from happening). Not only that, but in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), the Court upheld a Missouri State Law that said 'life begins at conception', and that there is no Constitutional infringment in doing so. So, once again, you have no constitutional leg to stand on, idiot. The 9th Amendment isn't important here, the 10th Amendment is. It grants this right to regulation specifically to states, and thusly you can't argue that it's somehow covered in the ambiguity of the 9th. It's a State's Issue more than anything else, and it's certainly not an individual rights issue. It's under the 'general welfare' of the people, and unless you can find a way to wrangle that in under Commerce Clause of the Constitution, it's not a Federal issue. It should be kept to the States, who can decide for themselves which is best.

Okay, okay, Kramer vs. Predator was good.

The only good joke in a fairly medicore show. The Herculoids appearance wasn't even that good. :-\

Well, it's true. The whole bullshit about Terry Schiavo would have been instantly stopped by a Living Will. It is the State's job to protect those who can not defend or speak for themselves. That goes for fetus's. People need to realize that the State really isn't allowed to let someone else say 'Yeah... yeah, they don't want this." :-\

And YOU can't prove that it is. Sure I can. It comes out alive. Why should I think it was any different before it came out? Prove to me that it isn't alive in the mother, and then you have an argument. Or better yet, tell me when it becomes alive, the exact moment that life is achieved. No, you just don't know what the hell you are talking about besides the lame teenage argument of 'it's her organs!' She had the final say in having sex. Having sex is a biological action for having a child. If that's not a choice to have a child, I don't know what is. By having sex, you consent to having a child. It's purely scientific: That's what sex is meant for. Those who want to get out of that responsibility are willing to eschew someone else's life for that. At any rate, it's not your decision whether or someone else's life begins or ends. It's the State's, and they are there to protect those who don't have a voice. It's not your choice, it's the State's, which is why it's not an individual right and instead a State right. No, they did just one day say it was a right. This wasn't an ongoing process, it was a decision for one case, one day. And hell, it was a very, very loose right based on fucking trimesters. You can't base immutable law on changing medical technology and terminology. Not only that, but if you look at more recent court cases, the 'Right' to Abortion has been constantly overruled over and over again, and it's only one court case away from blinking out of existance. I say O'Connor was stupid because she, in PP of SP vs. Casey, basically defended Abortion not on the idea that it was a right, but that they had to uphold precedent. They basically said that Roe vs. Wade was a mistake, that the decision was wrong, and that Abortion wasn't an actual right, but they had to uphold this due to precedent. Hell, they reject the trimester framework, which was basically everything Roe was based around. Renquist took them to school on this, and rightfully so, as 'upholding precedent' is not a justification for upholding something that you've recognized as a wrong decision. It was dumb as hell, and please try reading case law before you make foolish claims like the one above. No, they aren't. They are allowed to do this because 5 Judges said so. Please, get it right. The 9th Amendment is something that deals with federal rights. 'Public Welfare' is a State's right. Abortion falls under State's Rights, thusly using this 9th Amendment as a catch-all be-all is wrong and just purports this idiotic idea that 'just because it's not in the Constitution doesn't mean it's not a right'. If it's not in the Constitution, it's not a proven right, and can be modified. All in all, the 9th Amendment is doubly useless in your argument, because it doesn't protect abortion, nor does it even include abortion in it's span.

Uh... it's a stretch of a stretch, considering the Right to Privacy is barely a right. Bull. Shit. You don't have a right to privacy when it comes at the risk of another being. You're rights do not overrule someone else's. You can't prove that a fetus is not a life. Hell, you'd have trouble proving that Abortion comes under the right to Privacy considering it could easily come under 'Public Welfare'. This is exactly why the Right to Privacy is absolute bullshit at the moment. So suddenly the woman is a supreme expert in both biology and theology. The doctor isn't even qualified to say 'this isn't alive', even. No one is. How can it be a right when there's the very real possibility that it's infringing on someone else's rights? Oh, and 'Public Welfare' is easily under that. The state is allowed to regulate medical practices because they are integral to the safety and welfare of the general public. Otherwise, under your above reasoning, we couldn't have health and medical standards for hospitals because 'who are legislatures to judge a hospital is safe or not'. Whether or not you like it, there is a right to life. Thusly, you can't have a 'Right to Abortion' because it can only exist if that right to life is ignored. Uh, no, the State is protecting a life that can't protect itself. It's just as it should be. You can't invent powers to give you better rights than someone else just because it suits you better. Your failure is that you think it's just about reproductive organs, when it's really about the question of life and how we can't put a concrete right on top of something so nebulous and everchanging.

The 9th Amendment says: Just because a right isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution, it doesn't mean that right doesn't exist. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That doesn't mean it's a right, though. It doesn't make Abortion any more of a misuse of Judicial power because it is truly a state-rights issue. If one interprets the 9th Amendment along those lines, anything can be interpreted as a right because while it's not mentioned, it doesn't mean it's not covered. The 9th Amendment isn't a catch-all be-all for everything. Understandable for an honest Right to Privacy (Unlike the bastardized monstrosity that we have at the moment which covers anything and everything for whatever reason someone wants), but rights aren't meant to be used on changing social factors and such. Abortion is not an 'inalienable right'. Not even close. A right to privacy, properly restrained and defined, is, but not as it is right now. Making up rights out of nowhere and trying to cite the 9th is a last resort for those without a Constitutional leg to stand on.

What I'm saying is this: My definition for Judicial Activism (At least the one I was taught) was making up new uses and expanding the Constitution with language that just isn't there. I think you are describing more the Superlegislature effect, which isn't exactly Activism (Unless you want it to be *Whrugs*). Abortion, Right to Privacy, and a few others are examples of this. Just because you uphold more laws doesn't mean you are less activist. It's all dependent on your view of the Constitution and your idea of how it should be expressed. It's activist to uphold an Abortion Law to some because, well, that's not something in the Constitution. It's activist to another to strike down an AA law because it was the will of the people (Which isn't exactly true: Cases of legislative disconnect aren't uncommon, an example being the current Flag Amendment in the Senate). So Judicial Activism isn't one strict thing, it's just a buzz word that gets tossed out to describe something you don't like. Consider this, Big: How are those statistics derived, and what cases are the ones overturned? How many of them are laws out of California, how many of them are laws out of Texas, which are certainly not good indicators of the US as a whole's will? Statistics without context or background are the worst liars there are. Not calling you one, Smitty, but this is pretty much crap. Someone's only an activist through a view of the Constitution, not a statistic. Edit: Just to note in the article, Congressional Legislation isn't the only legislation that can be brought to the attention of the court. More often than not, it's a state law that violates some Constitutional Protection.

Smitty, Judicial activism is a buzzword more than anything else, but I'd say that it's not about striking down laws as it is making up parts of the Constitution (i.e. Abortion, Right to Privacy as we know it, etc...). It more applies to the idea of 'reading between the lines' when it comes to the Constitution and etc, etc. It's all really meaningless, since you can find ways to call anything activist. For example, what about law that is something new (Ala the Kelo decision that we've all be complaining about)? Isn't included in this. What if the other side simply supported more laws, becoming activist in that way? Simply striking down laws doesn't tell us anything of whether they were actually adhering to anything Constitutional. It's just the Times being the Times, and little more. But interesting statistics.