Do you think that Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are not activist justices? Give me a break.

One example, please, of any of them writing law instead of upholding the Constitution. I'm retired, I can wait for the answer.

Don't hold your breath waiting, RichieLion. We don't want to lose you.

Citizen's United

Really? The Supreme Court in this case overturned the illegal restricting of free speech guaranteed by by the First Amendment of the Constitution and you call this "judicial activism"? Oh please!!! Come up with a better answer than that.

Oh, and in addition; this decision was authored by Justice Kennedy; so your answer, besides being wrong on the face of it, was not authored by one of the four "conservative justices" named by Saratoga.

Since when is a Corporation a person with free speech?

I hope the following definition of a corporation clears this up for you Cologal. In any event the decision was written by Justice Kennedy. Try to find one written by Scalia, Roberts, Alito or Thomas to rebut the original point. You're in left field here.

"What Does Corporation Mean?
A legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets and pay taxes.

The most important aspect of a corporation is limited liability. That is, shareholders have the right to participate in the profits, through dividends and/or the appreciation of stock, but are not held personally liable for the company's debts."

I guess that judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder. I see the Citizens United case given corporations overwhelming say in politics. If you don't like that case perhaps the equal pay case that this court overturned saying the woman had to file within 18 months.

You made my point Cologal. Thank You!!! The Supreme Court, by law, can not view an issue except by how it complies with the Constitution. There is no room for "eye of the beholder". The law is the law Cologal. If the law is flawed, as you seem to think so, it has to be changed by the House and the Senate in accordance to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has no role in the making of law. When it does it's unConstitutional.

Also, again, the case you cite was written by Justice Kennedy. Usually he's one of "yours".

The law is subject to interpretation that's how we come to have your and mine as you say. I said judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder.

Somewhere something says " We the people" not "We the corporations"

I gave you the definition of a corporation and If you choose to ignore the fact of it there is nothing else to say to someone whose mind is made up in spite of facts. (Also, again, again, and again; the brief was written by Kennedy and is thereby invalid as an answer to the original question.)

I find your response laughable.....

Why? Because it is factual and an honest reading of the law, or do you believe that this should not be a nation of laws?

Curious exactly what is FUNNY ??????

Great comeback.