I don't "GET" this activists judge business......

[serryjw]

Is that not what they are there for is to interpret law? Since when do we allow average Americans to decide/vote on Constitutional issues, either on the state or federal level?

If we did how would woman and minorities EVER have been given the chance to become FULL citizen?The Courts are always ahead of public opinion.
It took until 2000 for the LAST state(Alabama) to overturn ban on interracial marriage
----quote
- Americans' attitudes toward black-white relationships have started to thaw over the years. But it's been a long, slow road. As recently as 1991, the National Opinion Research Center found that 66 percent of white Americans polled opposed a close relative marrying a black man.
More recently, a national survey by The Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University found 86 percent of black respondents said their families would welcome a white person. But only 55 percent of white families would respond in kind. Still, the Current Population Survey estimates that there are more than 450,000 black-white marriages today, compared with 51,000 in 1960
-------end quote

If we waited for Americans to 'arrive' I would still be a second class citizen.
http://csmonitor.com/cgi-bin/durableRedirect.pl?/durable/2001/07/25/p15s1.htm

[Downtown Hound]

1. It's really a smokescreen

to stop and roll back the civil rights advances made in the 50's and 60's, when the courts had real judges that sought to put an end to discrimination. The conservatives called them activist judges to give themselves a rallying cause.

[2Design]

6. exactly - they didn't like the judges making the same RED states

allow black/white marriages

[rwenos]

2. Bushies in Thrall to a Myth

The right wing aversion to "activist judges" relies on a myth, held by a certain strain of right wing lawyer (Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia are two), who believes the Constitution (written before the Industrial Revolution by rich white male landowners) can be boiled down to its "Original Intent," and decisions made that way.

Makes you wonder -- what would John Marshall have ruled on a Constitutional challenge to the Clean Air Act? (Huh? CARS?)

[aldian159]

3. Funny, they weren't "activists"

when they installed Dubya 5-4. But when they oppose the GOP, they are "activists".

[serryjw]

7. Said this many times....

WHERE is it written that SCOTUS could do what they did in 2000?

[Selatius]

4. Activist judges my ass

According to their definition, people like Chief Justice Earl Warren, who presided over the court that eventually abolished "separate but equal" as a doctrine were "activist judges" who did not take the traditional interpretation of the Constitution but sought to change it for what they thought was more just.

[TahitiNut]

8. Earl Warren was a Republican Governor of California ...

... appointed to the Court by a Republican President.

[sr_pacifica]

11. He was also what Bush would accuse of being an activist judge

Republican though he be, he believed strongly in protecting the rights of the individual.

[Charon]

12. He was also what Bush would accuse of being an activist judge

Except for the rights of Japanese Americans. His court refused to hear any cases brought about by the interment of Japanese Americans when he was the Governor of California.

[TahitiNut]

16. Actually, he was Governor during the Japanese internment, not a judge.

His support for the internment (a Federal action) was something he publicly regretted afterwards.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi Charon!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[2Design]

5. they don't like checks and balances that don't allow a

facist, totalitarian, dictatorship

we need the judges to override group think of congress people beholden to corporations and not the people

judges are suppose to uphold the constitution and they do except when they installed bush

[MisterP]

9. it's a code word for homophobic, race-baiting, anti-woman and -abortion

[erniesam]

10. activist judges and Texas republicans

Judicial Restraint – The Party supports the principle of judicial restraint, which requires judges to interpret and apply
rather than make the law. We encourage the support of judges who strictly interpret the law based on the law’s original
intent. We oppose judges abusing their constitutional authority by usurping jurisdiction organic to the States, assuming for
themselves the legislative powers, or basing decisions on jurisprudence emanating from jurisdictions foreign to our
Constitution and laws.
Remedies to Activist Judiciary – The Party calls on the Congress and the President to use their constitutional powers to
restrain activist judges.
1. Impeachment - The Party calls on the Congress to exercise their authority to impeach and remove federal judges
who abuse their constitutional authority or are no longer acting on good behavior.
2. Appellate Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court – Congress should be urged to exercise its authority under Article
III, Sections 1 and 2 of the United States Constitution, and should withhold appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court in such cases involving abortion, religious freedom, and all rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights.
3. Refusal to Enforce –The Executive Branch is obligated to defend the Constitution by refusing to enforce judicial
decisions that transgress the enumerated powers of the Article III Court. Congress should refuse allocating
funding for the enforcement of any such unconstitutional decisions.
Judicial Nominees – We urge the Republican leadership in the Senate to take appropriate action to ensure that a record
vote on the floor is taken on every judicial nominee.

Texas GOP Platform 2004

[Rockholm]

13. Here in Beautiful Massachusetts.......

Taking a snip from your post "the principle of judicial restraint, which requires judges to interpret and apply rather than make the law" is EXACTLY what our Supreme Judicial Court did. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts presented their case and the plaintiffs case was presented. We won. The judges interpreted the Massachusetts Constitution. NO laws were re-written.

[newyawker99]

19. Hi erniesam!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[PA Democrat]

14. Another classic example of Bush projection

Look at some of his judicial nominees. There are a NUMBER who had such an obvious agenda to push that it was quite appalling.

Jeffrey Sutton, is just one example of how Bush plans to use judicial nominations to push his agenda to undermine people's rights. Jeffrey Sutton SOUGHT OUT cases to argue against the rights of people with disabilities. He wanted to overturn the Americans with Disabilities Act. In one of his most famous cases, Olmstead v. L.C., he argued on behalf of the State of Georgia that the ADA did not prohibit unnecessary institutionalization of two women with mental disabilities.

[HootieMcBoob]

15. Brown v Board of Education

is an example of activist judges and they still haven't gotten over it.

These people hate the constitution. They don't like that there are three equal branches of government. They want to concentrate power in their own hands it's as simple as that.

The founders of the country knew that at some point there would be people like this who would try to take over the country and they made it as difficult as possible for them to do it.

They also understood that politicians would be either unable or unwilling to pass laws that were necessary to secure and maintain the rights of the citizens of the country. That's why the supreme court members aren't elected, they are appointed for life in order to interpret the constitution.

[DelawareValleyDem]

17. when a freeper

labels someone an 'activist judge', what he really means is this.
'I don't know anything about law and I have no interest in spending the considerable time it would take to familiarize myself and I'm afraid I may learn something I really don't want to, so I'll hide my ignorance behind this catch phrase'