Originally posted by Shawn R. L.
Originally posted by No Such Agency
Originally posted by Shawn R. L.
Even thought I\'m disheartened by the candidates and how the will of the people is thwarted by the activist judges who strike down what we vote for I still vote.................Good people died so I can have that right and it\'s to honor them that I vote anyway.
Don\'t forget those judges are the Judicial Branch, an important part of the checks-and-balances concept of government. It\'s their job to ensure that democracy does not simply become a tyranny of the majority - and sometimes that means ruling that \"popular\" laws are not
just or not legally consistent. If citizens could not challenge the law in court, in front of a judge who could potentially rule in their favour, this entire branch would simply be a rubber-stamping body for the Executive and Legislative branches.
And don\'t forget, for every \"activist\" judicial decision that gone against what you believe, there\'s probably been one supporting something you DO believe.
Seperation of powers is CRUCIAL......BUT many judges act in an autocratic manner making up interpretations to suit their own agenda and ignoring the constitution, the law, the people\'s vote.
The way the interstate commerce law has been hijacked is a prime example of a law that has been \'interpreted soooooo loosley that it can now apply to almost anything anywhere. It\'s too bad because operating with such an arrogant attitude they undermine their own credibility and do GREAT damage to a VERY VITAL branch of our government.
The 9th circuit court is famous for \'creative\' interpretations which leaves it so loose that they can judge by whim and their decisions simply contradict the constitution. It simply leaves the constitution meaningless......sad.
The Commerce Clause has indeed been bloated beyond belief. And indefensible judgements on other issues are hardly unusual. The fact that the Commerce Clause is your exibit A tells me you\'ve thought about this more than most, so I don\'t mean to be too combative here. With words like \"many\" it\'s hard to tell if you and I would really disagree on any particular.
I will say that I think complaints about \"activist judges\" are often quite unfair. Too often people voice that position when in fact the only thing they have to go on is their own disagreement with the political outcome. As a general rule, I think the notion of an activist judge does more to prejudice the debate than to advance a sound argument.
If a judgement is inappropriate, then that can be shown without the attack on the judge. If the inappropriateness of a judgement cannot be shown, then tossing the term \"activist\" out there too often skews the emotions too even start with the question. Quite often the \"liberal activist judges\" (that usually is the full phrasing) turn out to be conservative appointments with conservative records. They become \'liberals\" and \"activists\" when they make a decision people don\'t appreicate. All in all, I think it would be better to simply stick to the details on a specific case when the time comes. Stories about the judiciary getting too political just aren\'t that helpful.
I will add that some of the \"activist\" decisions were absolutely essential to important political victories. Had it not been for Brown v. Board of Education, this country would still have slavery (in the guise of Jim Crow Laws). That\'s a classic decision that is often tauted as politically motivated, and lots of people like to suggest it would have been better left to the democratic process. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is that the political process had completely and utterly failed in that instance. If black people can vote, if they can eat in public, ride the subway, live without fear of lynching, this is due in large part to the decisions of some very \"activist\" judges.
Are there cases and issues where judges have had less standing and produced worse results, absolutely. But the judiciary is a branch of our political and they are supposed to stand up to the democratic process from time to time. In at least some instances, it has been a damn good thing that they did.
