Here's your OT for the week.

For those of you who are looking for a bit more activity, The Forvm is in ship-shape.  We're a little slow at the moment, but they aren't.

I posted this to get to the heart of the matter on Sotomayor and the lively discussion regarding her nomination.

I think it would behoove all of us to properly define what exactly an "activist judge" is.  I would define an activist judge as one who does not follow the law and legal precedent when making a legal determination.  Rather, such a judge would substitute what they think the law should be rather than what it is.  However, there is a caveat. 

A judge on the Supreme Court need not follow precedent, as bad precedent needs to be overturned.  A district court or appeals court judge does need to follow any precedent, regardless of how wrong that precedent is.  IIRC, Gonzalez v. Carhart was a model for how judges should act: district and appeals courts struck down the law banning partial birth abortion based on precedent and the law.  The Supreme Court then changed the precedent.

Please offer up your own definitions of an activist judge and whether or not you'd agree that courts inferior to the Supreme Court are beholden to bad precedent.

As some know, there is a small chance I may run for US Congress in 2010 due to my dissatisfaction with how much of an issue "intellectual property" (mostly copyrights and patents) is in national politics.

Before I put forth my ideas, I'd like you at SC to put forth what you have to say on the matter.  Here are some questions you may want to consider:

Ballot access expert Richard Winger's blog is an invaluable resource to a minor party/indy enthusiast like myself.  Lately he's done some work detaling the large amount of unopposed incumbents for state legislature this year.

As my good friend Brutus14 pointed out in Thursday's open thread, the Barr campaign has filed suit [PDF] in Texas to have the court compel the Secretary of State to remove John McCain and Barack Obama from the ballot.

The statute in question which states in part:

Every few days until the election, I'll try to put out a relatively terse profile about some lesser-known candidates for President.

Party: Green
State: California
Running mate: Rosa Clemente
Previous experience: US House (1993-2003, 2005-2007), Georgia House of Representatives (1989-1993)
States on the ballot¹: 32 (as of 09/10, likely 33 as of 11/04)
States on as a write-in candidate²: 16

Many have said that President Bush's 2004 victory was at least in part due to the large amount of ballot measures that preemptively restricted same-sex marriages or civil unions. In light of that, we may want to take a look at some measures on the ballot in the coming election. These measures in swing states may prove to be the difference between President McCain and President Obama.

Quite obviously, everyone wants their party/candidate/issue to win or otherwise gain power. I wish to discover at what cost people are willing to ensure their candidate wins. The trend I'm beginning to see in our increasingly hyper-partisan and polarized politics is that this line is shifting, but in the wrong direction.

Ender's video which featured the former Clinton supporter indirectly reminded me of the topic of judicial appointments and its effect on voters.

A common argument for McCain that has been used to shore up his support among the base is that he will appoint strict constructionist judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia while Obama will try to pack the court with far left ideologues. That, in and of itself, is a good enough reason to pull the lever for McCain, regardless of what views he may have on other issues. Indeed, a McCain presidency could finally be what overturns Roe v. Wade. Lets take a moment to dissect these arguments.

Over the course of the next few weeks or possibly months, I'm going to pose a high-level political process question to the SC faithful. These questions will be mostly about how the government is fundamentally structured rather than on some sort of issue. My hope is that we can all debate from first principles on an issue that isn't readily discussed in normal political discourse.

Today, I'll ask questions about ballot access laws.

I wrote this in response to this diary over at Daily Kos. I usually don't post there, but I was feeling in the mood to put in a few words about Nader as I do from time to time. The comment grew a bit longer than I had realized, so it became a diary here. Also, I hope to be back posting open threads by the 7th. I hope everyone is having a good summer thus far.

I completely empathize with the Florida debacle, but I find the idea that everything was Nader's fault overstating the case.

I'll level with everyone here. Yes, if Ralph Nader didn't run for President (or had at least endorsed Gore in Florida or New Hampshire) Al Gore probably would have won the Electoral College. I say "probably" because public opinion preferences are chaotic.

Pundits and commentators have made much hay out of the demographic trends in the Democratic primaries. This is really to be expected given the candidates and their policy. Never have voters had to choose between a woman and a biracial (yes, Virginia, Obama's mother is white and from Kansas -- it doesn't get much whiter than that) man. Given the haphazard coalition that the Democrats have cobbled together to form a working majority, it would make sense that identity politics would take center stage, especially so in this historic election.

I took the liberty in creating an SC Folding@Home team .

For those of you not familiar with F@H, I'll let their FAQ do the talking. Essentially, you run a program that runs only when you are not actively using your computer. It does complex mathematical calculations involved in protein folding, which has applications in treating many diseases.

Back when I was contemplating a Political Science minor, I took a few upper level poly sci courses. Posted below is one of the essays I wrote in PLS 462 -- Comparative Revolutions. It's a long read, but it might interesting to the SC crowd. If anyone is interested, I can email them the full PDF. For copyright purposes, this can be considered public domain.

Apparently more than a few northeast Ohio Republicans decided to cross over in the March 4th primary and presumably vote for Hillary Clinton by choosing a Democratic partisan ballot.

We're used to hearing about partisans trying to game the system by voting insincerely for a candidate that they don't support. Democrats attempted exactly the same thing in Michigan by voting for Mitt Romney since they knew their votes for President would not be counted due to DNC rules. But Ohio law is very different from Michigan law regarding the procedure in primary elections.

Often we hear from the President that his first duty is to protect and defend our country from those who would harm us. We hear from not only the President and other Republicans, but even Chris Dodd that civil liberties must be given up in face of increased security to help prevent any further terrorist attacks. But is this really so? Let’s check the oath of office for the President of the United States:

Most people who regularly post here know my basic political temperament. At the core, I'm essentially a progressive/socialist with a few odd libertarian and federalist streaks. What puts me solidly in the libertarian camp on federal issues is my strict constructionist/originalist view of the Constitution. For instance, I really like the idea of social security, Medicare, the welfare state, etc., but in my view the Constitution authorizes no branch of government to create these programs. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

A recent comment about my Wikipedia userpage led me to the idea of asking everyone where else they have online presences. I know Second Life is somewhat popular in these parts. At what other websites do you have an account?

Obviously, if you aren't comfortable divulging anything, please don't. Google and a few bits of info can get the home addresses of just about everyone.

After a bit of debate on an open thread with GoRight regarding the intersection of creationism and science, I had a bit of time to think about what he said and the points that were raised throughout the thread.

I posted something similar to Kos.

In short, who is the least worst on the other side of the aisle. If a liberal/Democrat leaner, post your favorite Republican ticket. If conservative/Republican, your favorite Democratic ticket. If other, give your favorite from both major parties.

Remember, don't vote for who you think would make it easier for your side to win, but for whom you think would be best in the White House.

EDIT: I meant to limit everyone to announced Presidential candidates and possible VPs, but the discussion is going well enough.