These are actually classic examples of judicial activism, simply because the court had to stretch so far in order to reach the result they apparently wanted. It is said that “hard cases make bad law.” This means that the most sympathetic cases are the ones in which judges are most likely to choose the outcome and shortchange the law to reach that outcome. This is what happened in these 2 cases.

I know nothing about conservapedia, and have no opinion about it, but I can say that any more conservative or economically oriented law school will severely criticize both roe and brown, not because they had good motives, but because the legal arguments supporting them were bad. There just wasn’t really much to support the courts taking this action, as opposed to leaving it up to Congress.

“There are two major types of judicial activism practiced in the United States’ court system:

“1. Liberal judges striking down laws that uphold core conservative American values

“2. Liberal judges refusing to strike down laws that subvert core conservative American values”

Thank you, Conservapedia, for “introducing” objective standards where Wikipedia fails. The above Conservapedia contribution clearly exhibits no bias whatsoever.

Thankfully judicial activism has now been defined. No longer must we hear about Bush-appointed judges with financial conflicts of interest. No longer must we endure any claims of judges favoring commercial interests over the rights or well-being of individuals.

Thank you Conservapedia, for being so free of any bias.

Garv

so like their economic policies, conservatives aren’t so happy with an actually free market–rather they prefer a market in which the deck is stacked in favor of their friends from the outset.

I’m thinking that if we can just help them down the path that they’re already on (more home school for their kids, ID compatible “science” curricula, Dominionist theology approved “reality” and common sense vetted by Pat Robertson), they might just drive themselves to extinction…

My mind is blown, and I can’t find the fuses. How, exactly, does Mrs. Schlafly think those “creators of our unique land” got here? By spontaneous generation?

Q. How many generations have to pass before the descendants of immigrants are not longer “tainted” by immigration?

A. How many generations ago did Mrs. Schlafly’s ancestors immigrate to this country?

It is all part of what is best decribed as information control, a major mind control techniques. Shows itself in distinctives.

He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future. – George Orwell.

This nation has huge problems and millions of people who are not equipped to join in any honest effort to face them. The world is laughing and..crying.

If anything, this will make it easier to spot idiots in society: anyone who uses the Conservapedia as their source will instantly be exposed as a retard. This is also a project that will peter out in no time, collapsing under the weight of its own idiocy. It’ll never go anywhere. Be content with that knowledge.

Anyway, let’s get back to more useful pursuits, like getting the Chimpanzee impeached and then put on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The difference is that the Wikipedia is considered by many to be authoritative, and people look no further.

Not only are many wiki articles just inaccurate, there is a great deal of group think, and Stalin-like policing of articles to favor someone’s unacknowledged point of view.

My opinion, the Conservapedia is to crap as Wikipedia is to evil.

My account was banned by ASclafly within three minutes.

I’m not impressed with claims that the most egregious articles are by vandals or trolls. Seems to me they take responsibility for everything that appears there.