Ok...we all know the welfare system got started by FDR, who basically said allow my stuff to go through or I'll pack the Supreme Court.  Then FDR dies and for the last 60 years its gotten worse and worse...

How come the Supreme Court didn't do something after FDR died?  Or even much later down the line...they only have the best job security anyone could ever imagine.  And this applies to a whole lot more...guns, healthcare, welfare, etc...


I guess my question is why aren't they doing their job and saying you can't do this or we have to do away with this since its unconstitutional?

Probably stupid question I guess...won't pretend to say I am the most knowledgable in government and stuff.

Its the liberals [rolleyes]

Actually, ECS is right.  It IS the liberals.  They make up a significant voting body in this country.  One of my favorite quotes is this one:



And liberals end up on the bench as well.

To be honest, I am ambivalent about "judicial activism."  I complain about the [i]Dred Scott[/i] decision, but [i]given all the law and precedent up to that time[/i] the Court could not have ruled any other way [i]except by judicial activism[/i].  (I still hold the [i]Cruikshank[/i] Court in deepest contempt, though.)

I think the Burger Court in [i]Brown v Board of Education[/i] was [i]right[/i] - "separate but equal" wasn't.  But that did not give the court the power to demand bussing.  However, had they not forced the issue, it would have been decades before anything changed.

Liberals:  Can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em.