Is the Supreme Court only "activist" when it strikes down a law that conservatives happen to like?

You are absolutely correct. Conservatives are willing to broadly interpret the Constitution when it suits their purpose. The Second Amendment applies to the federal government. The activist conservatives on the Supreme Court chose to interpret it differently and limit local governments' ability to enact sensible gun control laws when it went against their belief in unfettered access to firearms.

Of course not. The Supreme Court is "activist" when it casts aside the law to make policy.

strikes down a law that conservatives happen to like?

> Abortion is not a Federal matter. Making it so is OBJECTIVELY activist.

> By agreeing to be IN The United States, States agree "gun rights" SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Upholding that is OBJECTIVELY not activist.

> Court rules that waterboarding is cruel and unusual punishment--in your imagination.

> "Limits amounts of damage claims" - is what Courts are for. If they tie the limit to government control (as is the case you're complaining about) they're doing nothing justice does not REQUIRE. If I operate as GOVERNMENT demands INSTEAD of by my own accord my liability must be mitigated.

Now, by the lying liberals' definition the Court is "activist" each and every time they rule The Constitution is indeed Constitutional.

Since the word abortion doesn't quite make it into the Constitution, but the civil rights ownership of a gun does, it is activist to create "penumbras" of constitutional law just to skillfully draft a non-existent right.

It's so sad you see apples and oranges and actually think they're the same fruit. You must be pre-law, as you've obviously never been to an actual constitutional law class.

You're so right, we conservatives enjoy the factual, actual wording of the Constitution as the basis of our beliefs, where libbies fight to include new language by judicial activism.

We live under a Constitutional Republic and, as such, live in a land of laws. Those justices who make a decision not based on our Constitution are activists....period. They believe our Cons. is a "living" document and should be interpreted as they see fit. We have a right to bear arms, the Cons. declares it and any other interpretation is wrong.

Excuse me I don't remember the amendment to the Constitution where it says we have the unalienable right to murder our unborn children. I know I read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" but I can't recall anything about ripping a child out of the most safe and peaceful environment it will ever know.

Really Lawyer X, did you not study the 10th Amendment in law school?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"

How do you feel about the 1st amendment being delegated to the states?

Exactly

the 2nd amendment is in clear language even lib Kagen agreed and that's saying something

Yes, yes, of course it is only under that circumstance.

Depends on who is complaining.

by definition there cant be a conservative activist judge.