Posted on 06/26/2005 6:16:45 PM PDT by RWR8189
Almost anyone on President Bush's short list of Supreme Court nominees will rouse Senate Democrats to filibuster. No one seriously believes that this will happen because his picks will lack proper training, integrity or temperament. Rather, what riles Democrats is Bush's repeated assertion that he will not appoint someone who "legislate[s] from the bench." They and their allies believe that Bush's opposition to judicial activism cloaks his real desire to fill the court with like-minded conservatives.
They are wrong. The president's view on activist judges is a defensible, neutral principle of appointment.
Democrats and Republicans are quick to hurl the term "judicial activism" at each other. The Warren court is condemned for elevating criminal-defendant rights over police needs, the Rehnquist court for expanding the power of states at the expense of the federal government.
A study praised by both liberals and conservatives — and that happens to have been done by my son, Keenan — found the phrase used thousands of times in scholarly articles and judicial opinions, but its meaning frequently came down to "a decision one does not like." Even Justice Antonin Scalia, one of Bush's favorite jurists, described "judicial activism" as "totally imprecise … just nothing but fluff." The problem is that common usage doesn't tell us where judicial restraint ends and judicial activism begins.
A clue to where the line should be drawn can be found in the words of the late Democratic Sen. Sam Ervin, who chaired the Watergate hearings. He said a "judicial activist … is a judge who interprets the Constitution to mean what it would have said if he, instead of the founding fathers, had written it."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I thought it was. I especially liked Sam Ervin's definition of judicial activism:
He said a "judicial activist is a judge who interprets the Constitution to mean what it would have said if he, instead of the founding fathers, had written it."
Reminds me of the definition of a Zealot: "Someone who does what God would do if God had all of the facts."
Thanks for posting.
I guess us Los Angelenos were "asleep at the wheel" on this one today.
Too nice a day at the beach to be home reading the papers.
And in the Left Angeles Times, no less. LOL
Semper Fi,
Kelly
How'd that get past the editor, whatshisname? Michael something? Kinsley?
The posted article is NOT an editorial. Why can't people learn the distinction? An editorial is an unsigned opinion expressed by the editorial board of the newspaper. It represents the thinking of the newspaper.
The posted article is an op-ed piece, i.e. a commentary from an individual that the newspaper deigns to publish. It is a column, not an editorial. And the newspaper would be the first to deny that it represents their thinking.
"Someone who does what God would do if God had all of the facts."
LOL! Too funny!
I liked that part too. The Washington Post called JRB a rightwing judicial activist (parapharasing) in an editorial against her nomination, yet she is almost the only active judge who interprets the constitution as our founders did.
Some great (IMO) quotes from her:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm
Here is my test: If I know how a court will vote on an issue and I know nothing of the law and I am right 90% of the time then I think something beyond the law is operating. That something is "how things ought to be" and it has no place in the judicial process. Unfortunately it has become the "judicial process".
The Law is the Law, for now, that is.
Sam Ervin also said, ""I'll have you understand I am running this court, and the law hasn't got a damn thing to do with it!"
"the power to tax includes the power to destroy"--McCulluch v. Maryland, 1819.
The power to confiscate property for any reason includes the power to destroy.
Gang of Five on SCOTUS just placed themselves in the peer group with those who handed down the Dred Scott decision and Roe v. Wade.
Bump, Excellent piece!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.