'Activist Judges' Under Siege

FoxNews ^ | May 22, 2005 | Liza Porteus

[FairOpinion]

Recent events have brought the term "activist judge" to the forefront of American politics, but some judicial experts say they believe the label may be nothing more than a smokescreen to taint members of the court.

Republican lawmakers also slapped the "activist" tag on Florida judges who ruled that Terri Schiavo's husband had the right to determine whether his brain-damaged wife's feeding tube should be removed. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay even asked the House Judiciary Committee to look into "judicial activism" at the time.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said Brown's record on the California Supreme Court "makes clear that she's a judicial activist who will roll back basic rights."

Napolitano said the definition of "activist judge" differs from the right to the left side of the political spectrum.

[FairOpinion]

Neapolitano is wrong on this one. It is very easy to define activist judges: judges who legislate from the bench, instead of interpreting the law.

[Jaysun]

"To conservatives, activist judges are those who permit or compel activity in which the opinion of the conservatives can only be done in the legislative branch," he said. "To liberals, activist judges are judges who prevent the government from doing things that the Legislature wants to do."

This is an absurd statement. He has the liberal definition wrong and the conservative definition supposes a debatable "opinion" in what should be done by the courts and what should be done by the legislator. The constitution is clear, and we're correct.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

CSPAN had a replay today of Mark Levin talking about his book , regarding the Activist Judges of the Supreme court, Ed Meese introduced him....it is now on my reading list

*******************************

Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America by Mark R. Levin (Hardcover)

Books: See all 64 items()

Buy new: $18.45    Used & new from $16.15    Usually ships in 24 hours    

[Noachian]

There is no such thing as an activist judge," said FOX News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano,... An activist judge is one whose ruling you disagree with.

Napolitno is dead wrong about that.

When Supreme Court Judges actively embrace European court rulings as worthy of inclusion into American constitutional law those judges are acting outside of their oath to uphold the Constitution.

When those same judges find constitutional "rights" never before seen in The Constitution in our 200+ year history those judges are in effect actively changing The Constitution unlawfully.

When the High Court judges arrogantly declare that they have the final say on any legislation passed by Congress those judges are actively usurping powers not delegated to them in The Constitution.

Napolitano is too close to the legal industry. He should step back a bit and take a hard look at what that industry is doing to the country in the name of judicial independence.

Judicial independence, it seems, is another way of judges saying: Leave me alone, and let me do what I want to do.

[Just A Nobody]

It is excellent reading and includes copies of the memos to the demonRATS from outside interest groups as to what judges they should block.

I caught part of Mark's appearance on C-span. Always a pleasure to listen to him.

[LloydofDSS]

Probably a better rule for when judicial activism is afoot is when a long lived policy is reversed overnite with no legislative action.

By that standard, Brown vs. Board was a case of judicial activism and so was Roe vs. Wade. I can't think of any cases where right leaning judges have made such sweeping changes in policy from the bench.

When a new law is tested for the first time and overturned, I don't think that can be as easily called activism.

It really is not a right vs. left issue.

I do agree that the left has employed these activist tactics far more than the right over the last 50 years. That is why they are fighting Bush's nominations to the court. His nominations will help end this 50 year era of judges usurping the power of the legislative branch.

[jazzlite]

You are right..Activists judges are certainly out there and they are "activists" because they are thumbing their noses at the Constitution and making new law based on their own political views as they rule. Allowing such leeway to judges is a dangerous road for American to go down. We are nearing a time when we will not recognize our own society because of liberal activism which has come from our courts for 30 years.

[PLK]

The entire law profession is in trouble. Check out any law school on any college campus in this country. They are seething bins of left-wing indoctrination; the students are pursuing law degrees for purposes other than to help people with their legal obligations and rights. They have an agenda, and it ain't pretty.

[sawdust]

We (libs and conservatives alike) are all so concerned about how appellate and Supreme Ct. justices will rule concerning legislation--legislation passed by freely elected US and state legislators. Yet, there is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING in the US constitution giving federal judges the authority to overturn legislation passed by such legislators. The judiciary (under Chief Justice Marshall) essentially seized this power in a constitutional coup in the seminal case Marbury vs. Madison. What we conservatives should be debating is whether the institution of judicial review should even exist in this day and age. Most representative republics don't have it. A law passed by a freely elected parliament is assumed to be constitutional. That is how it is in Britain and most of Europe. American legislators and executives swear an oath to uphold and defend the US constitution. It is thus unthinkable that they would introuduce, let alone pass legislation violating our Constitution. I know this seems quixotic, but if we press our allies in the Federalist society and in Congress, we may, someday, be able to push through a constituional amendment eliminating the odious doctrine of judicial review.

[Noachian]

...we conservatives should be debating is whether the institution of judicial review should even exist in this day and age.

Judicial Review shouldn't exist in any day and age. The entire concept of judicial Review is that the judicial branch gets to say is and what isn't constitutional, and that is a receipt for tyranny. The power to interpret is the power to corrupt.

No place in the Constitution does the judiciary have the powers to review legislation and declare it unconstitutional. The Framers knew that the judiciary was the one branch of government that was liable to abuse its authority, and gave Congress the task of keeping it in line. Sadly Congress has never lived up to their duty, and all of us are paying the price for that dereliction.