|
Activists! Activists! Get them off of the Judiciary! Activists!
Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, both the Takings clause and Bill of Attainder clause might get you towards your argument. But if not, other than seeming "wrong", doesn't this happen every day--Congress moves wealth from one pocket to another through legislation.
What if the Congress passed a bill saying all gay marriages in Massachusetts are void? Same result? Different because of different const. grounds?
|
The difference is that my case -- and Schiavo's -- doesn't involve only abstract principles of law -- e.g., all gay marriages in Massachusetts -- but rather the application of law to one particular set of facts. And it's not like a Congressional determination to pre-empt state law before there's an adjudication -- it's an after-the-fact response to a judicial decision that one doesn't like. Boxer wouldn't do the same thing for club, after all.
__________________
“It was fortunate that so few men acted according to moral principle, because it was so easy to get principles wrong, and a determined person acting on mistaken principles could really do some damage." - Larissa MacFarquhar
|
