There is NO distinction between the First Amendment
and the Second.
One enforces, and reinforces the other. Either direction.
The Roberts Court Is One of the Least Activist Courts of the Modern Era
From Ace of Spades:
Now, I've got to say right off the bat: I don't know what the outcome of the case will be and neither does anybody else except the justices, their clerks, and a half-dozen other people. What follows is merely a reply to liberal idiocy, not an implied prediction of the outcome of the case. We may not win.
In their effort to preemptively attack the credibility of the Supreme Court in general and Chief Justice Roberts in particular, liberals have started spreading a stupid and easily refutable lie.
It started with that James Fallows character who claimed the Supreme Court was about to perpetrate a coup. He claimed that Justices Roberts and Alito in particular, “actively second-guess and re-do existing law.” Jeffrey Toobin, CNN's chief law analyst who completely shit the bed predicting that no lower court would even pretend that the Obamacare lawsuits had merit, also oozed this lie, claiming that the Roberts Court has been "eager" to overturn legislatures. This lie was ultimately repeated by Politico's dim and shallow Roger Simon and now it is ubiquitous and unchallenged among liberals.
Yes, in about 48 hours liberals managed to cook up this claim and now they're all scurrying around repeating it like a bunch of lemmings. There's just one problem: it is completely untrue.
This is not a matter of opinion. We can actually count how often various Courts have "re-done existing law" and "overturned legislatures." And such a count reveals that the Roberts Court doesn't overturn as many precedents as its three predecessors. The Roberts Court doesn't even come close to overturning the number of laws that its three predecessors did.
Go read the whole thing.
posted by Pastorius at