Activism on the bench. Does that mean they work out between rulings?

“Activist Judge”

Like ‘Elite’, this is another word conservatives like to label those (judges) they disagree with and don’t seem to know what it is. They just throw it around. Don’t like a ruling? It was done by an Activist Judge! The only good beliefs are always conservative beliefs. When conservatives lose, it was because of an ‘Activist Judge’ and the [X] agenda is out to get them and destroy America! If a liberal loses, it is only considered a ‘set back’ and they move on.

So, what is an “Activist Judge”? I always believed that it was “a judge that, through their rulings, set or reversed policy” Or, you know, doing their job. That’s what I got from my college classes. However, it appears that it means “philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions” A few lines later, “in practice 'activist' turns out to be little more than a rhetorically charged shorthand for decision the speaker disagrees with”. Thanks again Wikipedia! So basically it means, “an opinion on a judicial ruling” or “a phrase thrown around without any meaning”.

We have seen some “Activist” rulings recently; overturning Prop 8, overturning ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, Intelligent Design is unconstitutional, etc.

People, stop labeling things! Just say, “I disagree with that ruling because it conflicts with my ideology”.

There is a thing called ‘checks and balances’ that has been crammed down our throats since civics class. Congress makes a law, President signs the law, courts can then challenge said law. That is how the process works. It is up to the judge to determine if a law is constitutional or not. Sometimes they uphold it, sometimes they don’t. That’s the system; live with it.

 

Judges are not always swayed by their personal beliefs. Let’s look at Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, i.e. the intelligent design case. Judge John Edward Jones III presided over the case and he was a very conservative man appointed by George W. Bush. He then ruled against intelligent design. In defending his position, Jones said a few years later, “The judicial branch protects against the tyranny of the majority. We are a bulwark against public opinion. And that was very much done with a purpose, and I think that it really has withstood the test of time. The judiciary is a check against the unconstitutional abuse and extension of power by the other branches of government.” Wow! A Judge who understands the Constitution and wasn’t swayed by his personal beliefs!

 

The right then called him an ‘activist judge’, O’Reilly called him a fascist (how???) and the good Christians sent him death threats causing him to require federal protection.

 

 (I have no idea why it changed the font and size. Sorry!)

There have been some bad judgments made, like Dred Scott. Dear God, what a bad case! The 1857 Supreme Court case attempting to answer the question, “should Dred Scott, a slave brought into a free state, be freed?” ended with a ruling stating that blacks could not be citizens. WTF? Why didn’t they just ban abortion and flag burning at the same time? It makes just about as much sense!

So yes, Virginia, Judicial Activism does exist. It’s just not as common as you think. I disagreed with the recent decision to strike down “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. I think the policy is BS, but we should iron things out before we just abandon the policy. However, I didn’t call the judge in question an ‘Activist’. She made a decision, I don’t like, move on.