The thing is? As an attempt to use it to repeal health care reform it it is. If they only are going after removing this one part? Then no. But the judge in question was active in fighting the health care reform. So, that makes him more activist than merely "upholding the Constitution." The Judge who overturned prop 8 was less of an activist, yet the anti-gay marriage groups argued his opinion was invalidated because he was gay. By that standard, a judge who actively tried to fight "Obamacare" is definitly not a valid candidate to be making a fair and impartial decision here.
Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I want a song to learn and sing, of a life requited."-Echo & the Bunnymen
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Geerdes <[email protected]>
To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, Dec 13, 2010 4:47 pm
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Central Provision of Health Care Law Is Ruled Unconstitutional
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:39 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> I anxiously await conservatives outrages about judicial activism.
Adhering to the Constitution is "judicial activism"?
--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not
affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for
the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.