Activist Judges

[KingFlorez]

Shrub is always talking about so-called activist liberal judges and I have never known a liberal that has gone to the court with an agenda. In fact it is all conservatives who go onto the court to strike down Roe v. Wade and civil rights law.

Just how does our de facto President define activist judges? I imagine if this was 1954 he'd be calling the justices who calling struck down segregation activists infringing on people's values. His talk against activists is really rather off base for himself sense he was appointed by a few activist conservative judges obtructing democracy on the Supreme Court, if those aren't activist who is? His appointments to the courts include a judge who ruled for cross burning, ones who can't seperate church and state and another who calls medicare a "socialist revolution". What Shrub fails to remember is the courts don't make the law, they interept it. He plays like he believes that judges don't legislate, but in reality he wants to pack the court with right-wing ideologs who will carry out his agenda and use their religious and personal beliefs to interept the law.

[expatriot]

1. Conservatives think that actifvist judges are....

judges who "legislate from the bench..." They (conservatives) believe that these "activist judges" make rulings based on their own their liberal ideology rather than precedent, the rule of law, etc. It is the trademark mentality of conservatives... to not only believe in absolute truth... but to believe that they are Protectors and Keepers of this absolute truth... and that liberals are out to sabotage their Covenant with the Truth. They can not grasp that history, precedent, laws, and legal and historical documents have multiple interpretations according to your perspective and priority.

They view the Constitution as a static document, a dead document where as liberals see it - as they do society - as an organic creation of our society to best fit the ever-changing needs and evolving dynamic of that society.

For example, conservatives shake their heads in disbelief with judges who argue that it is unconstitutional to deny gays the rights of marriage, conservatives point to such arguments as proof that they are making "stuff up" from the bench to promote their ideology - whereas these "activist judges" cite, among others, the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment as precedent and constitionality of their decisions.

It is one thing for them to disagree with these judges' rulings, but to try and discredit them by saying that they are not "correctly" interpreting the law and the Constitution is quite typical conservative logic... where they have a monopoly on Truth.

[Land Shark]

2. judges who claim not to be "activist" judges maintain

a myth about the intent of the Founders and interpret and legislate from that myth perspective.

They are no less activist in the sense of bringing their own meanings to the text, but due to a more fixed time frame set in the past and the sharing of this myth with certain other judges, they can sometimes appear to be more "faithful" to some kind of text.

But the bottom line is that no multiple author text like a Constitution can be interpreted without choosing innumerable assumptions and policy perspectives. (After all, the document is sometimes incomplete, vague, and in tension at points). The 'strict constructionists' engage in a sort of historical fantasy, but it is still one adjusted to the corporate realities they also wish to support (corporations were disfavored at the time of the Constitution).

Ask a strict constructionist how they are enforcing the anti-corporate views of Madison and Jefferson.

[TaleWgnDg]

3. It's a misnomer to call a judge "activist" or "activist judge" as if . . .

.
It's a misnomer to call a judge "activist" or "activist judge" as if . . . it is something horrible. It's not. All judges "act" and all judges "make" law from the bench. The higher up the court is, the more profound is the law "made" from the bench.

Yes, say it again - JUDGES "MAKE" LAW. Wow. Now, that wasn't hard, was it?

If it's a trial judge then that trial judge may interpret pre-existing law to the facts and circumstances of the case heard before him/her, then add something new to the law in his/her decision. It's called "case law." And it expands or contracts pre-existing law. Yes, judges "make" law. If it's an appellate court judge then the decision (case law) attaches to laws in a wider geographic area, be it an entire county or an entire state. Or if it's a federal case then to some states or the entire nation.

Again, judges "act" by "making" law called "case law."

However, all that said and done (and it's done daily in all the courts across America), doesn't stop people such as George Walker Bush and his ignorant followers from bashing this entire jurisprudence area across America. Egads, "activist judges!" "How horrific!" Those words are used by people who merely do not like the writings, opinions, decisions, orders, etc. of a court or a judge, period. It's word manipulation. Using words to negate judges and courts. Plain and simple, it's politics. Politics of the powerful against those who don't understand the courts and our legal system.

BTW, did you know that this U.S. Supreme Court -- the Rehnquist Court -- has overturned more U.S. congressional laws than any other U.S. Supreme Court?! Yup, tis true. Now, do you want to call this Court the most "activist" in American history? Of course, you realize that the most ungrounded (in law) decision of this Court is their Bush v. Gore debacle. Talk about "activism" from the bench !!! Unreal. A bunch of so-called "strict constructionists," "originalists," and "states rights" idiots, who used the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment against the State of Florida! ROFLMAO . . . so goes George Walker Bush.



.

[HawkerHurricane]

4. A judge is 'activist' when he does something you don't like.

When judges said we should count all the votes in Florida, they were being activist.
When they said stop counting, you're being unfair to President-elect Bush, they weren't.

In other words, a judge is activist if he does something a conservative doesn't like.

[RoyGBiv]

5. I don't know about Shrub ...

I honestly think he doesn't have a brain in his head that works well enough to have a coherent thought on such matters. But, overall ...

From a historical perspective, the term itself is code for judges who agree with Marshall's ruling in Marbury v Madison. That ruling allows judges to interpret the Constitution in such a way that even though textually no fundamental "right to privacy" is mentioned, various elements of the text can be interpreted to support such a right. In short, it gives the SC final say on what the Constitution means, and that is not something that is clear from the text of the Constitution itself. The whole "strict constructionist" mentality is based around this, whether proponents realize it or not. It might be tempting to say that all judges agree with the Marbury ruling since the manner in which they perform their jobs is based on it, but such is not the case. Thomas and Scalia both have openly expressed reservations with it.

What they want, in short, is either to open the debate again or, more likely, clearly define either the Executive or Legislative branches as either equal or supreme in determining the meaning of law. And when you have that, particularly in the case of such power residing with the Executive, what you have is a dictatorship.

[Sgent]

6. It saccurate to say

that conservatives view the Constitution, US Code, CFR, etc. as Napolionic code -- where precedent means nothing and the actual law (written words) mean everything.

They view derived rights (Mirand warning, supression of illegally obtained evidence, privacy, etc) as unconstitutional, since its not directly mentioned by Congress or in the Constitution.

Conservatives only believe this when they are agaisnt a court decision. They are happy about things such as the school zone gune ban being overturned.