Judicial Restraint: The Courts Must Reverse Previous Rulings When They’re Anti-Constitution

Seton Motley | Less Government | LessGovernment.org
Seton Motley | Less Government | LessGovernment.org
Much Precedent –
Ain’t Great Constitutionally

Judicial activism is extraordinarily damaging to our nation.

Judicial activism is when judges and Justices issue rulings diametrically opposed to the Constitution and existing law – because they’d prefer their Leftist ideology be imposed instead.

These judges and Justices aren’t interpreting law – they’re writing law.  They should stop attempting to con us, take off the robes – and run for legislatures.

The Leftist-Zeitgeist assertion that there is such a thing as conservative judicial activism – is patently absurd.

Conservative judges practice judicial restraint.  As in restrained by the Constitution and existing law.  As in government – restrained by the Constitution and existing law.

Conservative jurisprudence – is antithetical to judicial activism.

To warp justice, Leftists warp judicial concepts like Stare Decisis:

“(A) doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions – unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice.”

Emphasis ours – because Leftists always leave that part out.

It is NOT judicial activism for a conservative court to reverse a terrible precedent from a preceding Leftist court.  It is a restoration of judicial restraint – and thereby government restraint.  It is Stare Decisis – rightly defined and imposed.

The mental illness that is Leftism – results in absurd assertions like this:

Stare Decisis Requires Roe v Wade Be Affirmed

Again: Only if you leave off the latter half of Stare Decisis’ definition.

Abortion Defenders Explain Why Roe v. Wade Was a Terrible Legal Decision

Honest Pro-Choicers Admit Roe v. Wade Was a Horrible Decision

Why Roe v. Wade Is a Travesty of Constitutional Law

Judicial restraint and Stare Decisis – demand the Supreme Court reverse the ridiculous ruling that was Roe v Wade.  Doing so would be undoing judicial activism – not engaging in it.

Look: Judges and Justices – are human.  Humans make mistakes.

Many judges and Justices – are activist Leftists (a monumental failing of the US Senate and other judiciary advise-and-consent bodies).  They often rule in direct contravention to the Constitution and the law.

Saying every decision by every human wearing a robe and sitting on a bench must stand always and forever – is antithetical to Reality.  And the Constitution.

Our adherence to preposterous precedent has screwed up nigh every aspect of our society and our lives.

Behold absuive “Fair Use” and its bastard son “Transformative Use” – and its titanic abuse in all things copyright:

“Although there are other exceptions to the far-reaching rights of copyright holders, most of those exceptions only apply in very limited circumstances. Fair Use is much more flexible, but also much harder to understand and apply….”

Get that?  Leftist activist judges and Justices LOVE “more flexible” and “much harder to understand and apply.”  Because it is from these muddy waters – which often they themselves muddy – they can repeatedly attack our Constitutional republic.  But wait….:

“Transformative Use is a relatively new addition to Fair Use law, having been first raised in a Supreme Court decision in 1994. (Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, 510 U.S. 569 [1994].)”

Get that?  Some clowns in gowns just a quarter century ago – made up “Transformative Use” out of the very thin air.  So as to exponentially expand their ability to be activist – and expand the ability of copyright thieves to steal copyrighted stuff.

Which brings us to now – and this opportunity for the Supreme Court to reverse much of this nonsense:

“The Supreme Court will rule this year on Google v. Oracle, a case some say is the copyright case of the century. When it does, it will have the opportunity to rein in both Google and the legal doctrine of ‘transformative use,’ an abuse of the ‘fair use’ exceptions to copyright laws.

“In this case, Oracle is suing Google for copyright infringement. Early in the 2000s, Google was negotiating with Oracle to purchase Java programming language for use in the smartphone Google was developing.”

Stop right there.  Google “negotiating with Oracle to purchase Java programming language” – is an unquestionable admission by Google that they needed Oracle’s permission to use Java.  But….:

“When negotiations stalled in 2007, Google copied more than 11,000 lines of Java code and turned it into the Android operating system.”

Google gave up on paying Oracle for Java – and just stole it:

“Oracle filed suit in 2010, but only late last year did the Supreme Court decide to take up the case.”

This side of Communist China, Google is the hugest Intellectual Property (IP) thief on the planet.  They incessantly steal tons of things that are protected by copyrights and patents – and then use the massive heft of their $1-trillion-net-worth to bury their victims in court.

Thank God – Oracle is fighting back.  Here’s hoping that in the process – the Supreme Court reverses the titanically awful “Transformative Use” a preceding Court created out of whole cloth:

“Google often allegedly exploits the ‘Fair Use’ exceptions to copyright protection. Under Fair Use, one can use copyrighted material for purposes of commentary, criticism, or parody.

“Since Google is a tech company not known for engaging in any of those activities, arguing fair use is absurd – if not for the doctrine of ‘Transformative Use.’”

Here’s from whence that judicial nonsense came:

“Transformative use became legal doctrine in the 1994 Supreme Court case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music. The case involved rappers 2 Live Crew’s appropriation of Roy Orbison’s song ‘Pretty Woman.’ The rappers said their version of the song was a parody and thus not a copyright violation.

“Justice David Souter, writing for the majority, said what was at issue with the rappers’ rendition was whether it added ‘something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the [original song] with new expression, meaning, or message … in other words, whether and to what extent the new work is “transformative.”’”

Souter and his fellow clowns in gowns ignored the Constitution and existing law – and just unilaterally, vastly expanded the ability of copyright thieves to steal copyright.  The floodgates having been opened – things kept getting worse:

“The most egregious case is Righthaven, LLC v. Jama (2011), in which the Center for Intercultural Organizing had posted verbatim on its website a Las Vegas Review-Journal article.

“In that case, the U.S. District Court for Nevada ruled that the article’s use was transformative because the Center for Intercultural Organizing’s purpose for posting it was ‘informational,’ to educate the public, not to make money.

“Following that logic, posting copyrighted work in full is legal as long as the purpose is to inform. More courts following Righthaven would go a long way toward gutting copyright protection.”

Now we have a “Transformative Use” hole big enough to drive…a $1-trillion -Google through.  And for Google – its always rush hour on that route:

“Google is trying to exploit transformative use in the Oracle case, claiming it transformed Java by using it in a smartphone.

“Again, that would be absurd, except Souter never defined the terms ‘expression,’ ‘meaning,’ or ‘message.’ Transformative Use has been a free-for-all for lower courts ever since.”

Souter’s judicial activism – began this ongoing, rolling nightmare mess.

We need this Court to reimpose judicial restraint – to clean it up.

Killing “Transformative Use” – would be an inordinately outstanding thing for them to do.

This first appeared in Red State.