Re: "liberal activist judges"

I think that's a flawed test. Most conservative judges are big into limited federal power, so they would find much of what the government does, and the statutes Congress passes, to be unconstitutional.

 

I think you're mistaken on why people call certain judges "liberal activists." I tend to think of the term to describe judges who try to create law as opposed to simply interpret it.

Take the "Right to Privacy" for example. The SCOTUS created that right. It does not exist in the constitution. The proper way to get that right isn't to have the court create it but to have an amendment passed granting that right.

 

so what do you call it when a conservative judge tries to create law as opposed to simply interpreting it?

wasnt bush winning in 2000 a result of "judicial activism"? the s.c. overrulled the florida state court (i thought republicans supported states rights?) and forced them to stop counting ballots and declare bush the winner.

i guess its only judicial activism when they do something the neo-cons dont like.

 

so the example you cite is the supreme court declaring that we have a right to privacy? are we to infer that you are against americans having an inherent right to privacy?

spoken like a true neo-con.

 

if conservative judges are into limited federal power than why did the conservative justices rule to overturn the florida s.c. in the 2000 election? i thought conservatives were for states rights?

 

I think it would be more accurate to say it's "judicial activism" when the Supreme Court makes a decision the other side doesn't like, regardless of which side that is. The example of the SC stepping into the 2000 election and giving it to George W. Bush by a 5-4 vote would be pure judicial activism by any standard, and certainly an activist court took the right-wing, conservative side, although the 4 dissenting judges were outspoken in their disagreement, if I recall correctly, something that's not always the case. Roe versus Wade would be judicial activism, according to anti-abortion activists. It depends on the decision, and which side of the prism your looking through.

I find the angst of conservatives, towards "judicial activism," more than a little amusing, considering how quiet they are regarding the subject, if that activism affects their agenda in a "positive way." The Supreme Court has always made decisions of great national import, throughout our history, and to say that this is something relatively new, and the product of "liberal justices" is, in my opinion, ludicrous. That's why Supreme Court, and other lifetime Federal court appointments, are of such paramount importance, and why those who supported George W. Bush, for example, based on one issue, were so foolish to do so. In my opinion.

Wars have unintended consequences. The Bush supporters that give their support because of this "war on terror," and say everything else pales in comparison, have abrogated their responsibility to attempt to have moderate judges on the Federal bench, if their views are otherwise moderate or liberal in nature. These judges will be interpreting and making law decades after George W. Bush and his policies of fear and war have departed the scene. Those of you with moderate or liberal views, excepting Bush's "war on terror," will be watching decisions you don't like coming from those Bush appointees for many years to come.


Keep D&D Civil.

 

Wow, jomama, wow. I gave ONE example as why people think some justices are liberal activists.

No, I do not think there IS a right to privacy in the Constitution. That does not mean I don't think there SHOULD be one in there. Unlike some, I am able to accept that if I want there to be one, I should hope to achieve it through the proper channels.

As for the Bush case, the activism isn't necessarily because they overruled the Florida court. Using that as the basis for your argument is not a good idea. There are other ways you could frame your argument but I don't think that anyone would define Judicial Activism as overturning a state court's decision.

Deckard, I don't think everyone feels like you claim they do when it comes to judicial activism. I see it on both sides but see more examples from the liberal side. I think examples on ANY side are sad.

Take this quote from Nan Aron, president of Alliance for Justice (a liberal activist group):

[This is quoted from the book Supreme Chaos by former (conservative) judge Charles Pickering]

 

You wouldn't call overturning a state supreme court to decide the election of a President judicial activism??



Keep D&D Civil.

 

If that's not judicial activism I'm not sure what is. Bush v Gore wasn't just a matter of overturning a state court's ruling but making a ruling that wasn't based on precedent and goes against the Constitution that states that the determination of electors for a presidential election is the State's responsibility and not a federal one. If the USSC were acting judicially conservatively they shouldn't have even heard the case and left it the FLA courts and legislature to figure out.

 

I see what you're saying. However, he stated as his SOLE basis for the case being judicial activism that the case overturned a Florida Court decision. Higher courts are allowed to do that without it being called judicial activism.

 

The people who throw out crap like "liberal activists" or "strict constitutionalist" are talking to people who have no idea what is in the constitution, only that the law did not break their way.

 

I've said it before, I'll say it again: "judicial activism" = decisions that Republicans don't like.

 

This is just so antagonistic, though.

I don't think judges should be creating law from the bench. If that makes me an evil Republican, then I guess you can call me that.

I thought we were supposed to keep this place civil...

 

Well that's funny, becasue the Rehnquist court created all sorts of new law from the bench and didn't hesitate to intervene at all, nor to further entrench the power of the Supreme Court in particular, and the judiciary in general. But nobody ever b****es about it, generally because the kinds of decisions that came along with this were the ones that Republicans liked.

Judicial activism = decisions Republicans don't like.

 

OK, Mr. Fisher

 

halfbreed, I still don't understand how you can not call the Supreme Court decision picking the President of the United States anything but judicial activism. I understand that Bush's supporters were, and presumably still are (those left that still support him, a dwindling number), thrilled that the SC intervened with a state supreme court decision, on an issue that clearly should have been left to the state supreme court. (in my mind, it's certainly very clear that it should have been) How are you able to argue that this was "business as usual?"

What could possibly be more activist than the 2000 Supreme Court electing George W. Bush?

I understand your comment on civility. I put that at the bottom of my posts as a reminder, as much for me, as for anyone else, that we need as much of that here as we can get. I have to give Sam credit for being the same in GARM as he is here... being Sam.


Keep D&D Civil.

 

You're welcome to disagree, and I'm sure you'll go on believing that judges who are happy to dismantle acts of congress and radically revamp our understanding of the commerce clause, due process, free speech, etc are not "activists", and keep proving my point.