What is an 'activist' judge?

[screwfacecapone]

I'm always wondering what do right wingers mean when they talk about activist judges. To hear them talk, it sounds like someone who makes a ruling they don't like, but I could be wrong.

[AllyCat]

1. You hit the nail on the head. It's someone who rules against their favor.

That's an activist. If the judge rules like they want, he or she is fair and impartial and "follows the rule of law" as they like to say.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. You are exactly right.

The Repooplicans like to rant about those "liberal activist judges," but they are really just complaining about rulings they disagree with. Activist judges are those who ignore legal precedent in favor of their own personal biases so they can make cases come out the way they want. But judicial activism is just fine for the wingnuts as long as they get results they like. In fact, the many decisions issued by various courts relating to Terry Schiavo illustrates their hypocrisy: they criticized these judges, many of whom were actually Republicans, because they weren't activist enough. In other words, they followed the law and the Constitution -- and the wingnuts hated them for it because they didn't get the outcome they wanted.

[Broken_Hero]

8. True True...

I see that a lot of cspan, a lot of complaing about activist judges, and when you boil it down, its plainly, simply, because those judges didn't agree with what they "RW" thought/wanted/desired.

[Canuckistanian]

3. I heard one definition a while ago...

It's someone who argues to rule against legislated laws.

And on that count, the conservatives win hands down. Someone crunched the numbers and found that Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas have the lock on that distinction.

[pa28]

4. An activist judge is one who tramples on "states rights".

For instance, a Federal or Supreme court judge who rules to stop vote counting or re-counting provided for legally at the local level.

Several of these sinister types currently sit on the S.C.

Note: this post contains sarcasm.

[beyurslf]

6. An "activist" judge is one who strikes down legislation. Conservative

judges are the most activist. A judge who strikes down federal law in favor of the states is a strict contructionist ACTIVIST judge. Thomas and Scalia are great examples.

[TaleWgnDg]

5. Yup. It's a judge who goes outside the bounds that a judge

Yup. It's a judge who goes outside the bounds that a judge should go. However, its caveat is just as you stated, i.e., that such a derogatory charge as "activist judge" is in the eyes of the beholder. What's "activist" to one, is w/i legal bounds to another.

Another term that's highly subjective is "legislate from the bench." It's a truly stupid term and demonstrates ignorance of the person speaking about it or the audience who swallows it. The reason? Because all judges make law. All judges opinions make new law. And that law is called "case law" (or "caselaw") which adds to existing law. It may narrow existing law or expand existing law. Case law is as old as is cases heard before judges. One last note about "legislate from the bench." The term attempts to demonstrate that judges should stay within the confines of the judicial branch and merely "interpret" law and not delve into the legislative branch of government by "legislating from the bench." Another derogatory term used against judges.

If one wanted to apply both terms, it could be said that the Rehnquist Court (SCOTUS w/ Rehnquist as Chief Justice) has been the most activist Court since the inception of SCOTUS -- its entire history. Why? Because the Rehnquist Court has over-turned more congressional laws than any other SCOTUS in the Court's entire history. The Rehnquist Court should have not legislated from the bench their own ideology. heh.
.

[wtmusic]

7. An activist judge is any judge whose rulings you don't like

A fair, balanced, thoughtful judge makes rulings you do

[_ed_]

9. It's Republican Newspeak

It's a talking points code for anyone they don't like who is on the bench. Every time you hear "activist" think "anywhere left of center."

[screwfacecapone]

10. good points

Good points being made. I asked becuase basically right wingers only make a fuss when the rulings made by 'activist' judges aren't in thier favor.

[johnlal]

11. Activist Judges v. Strict Constructionists

These terms are so infused with political spin that people should be ashamed to use the terms. The complaint is that these Judges "give rights" to people that are not specifically listed in the Constitution or laws of the United States. "Activist" judges, for instance, are accused of creating a "right to privacy" which is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Conservatives bemoan that the court has protected people from government intrusion in areas such as medical decisions (i.e. abortion), consensual sexual relations (i.e.sodomy), and family (same-sex marriage)-- when there is no "right to privacy" mentioned in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade is the most cited example of judicial activism, of "legislating from the bench" in that it recognizes the right of a woman to have an abortion, even though that right is not specifically listed in the Constitution.

This argument is ignorant of American History and Constitutional Law.

Firstly, the Constitution speaks of our rights in very broad terms. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect our "life, liberty and property" from government intrusion, requiring "due process" of law. It is the role of the Court to scrutinize Government action against these very broad concepts.

Secondly, the "strict constuctionists" base their argument on a very false assumption. They assume that the Constitution "gives us rights". They assume that the Court is making up new rights, and in doing so, it is usurping the role of the legislature. Implicit in the last point is their belief that the legislature can create rights and take them away. This is not the case with regard to our fundamental (Natural) rights. Real Americans understand that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. Further, the Declaration states that the government derives its power from the consent of the governed (not vice-versa). These truths form the American ideal, and were derived from the works of philosophers John Locke, Emerich de Vattel, and Jean Jacques Rousseau, among others.

Thus, neither the Constitution nor Congress can give us rights that we were already endowed with. Neither can they take away rights which are recognized to be "inalienable".

So the question becomes: If Congress or the President acts in a way that infringes on our fundamental rights, who can we resort to? The Courts should be open to hear our grievances. The Courts should be allowed to balance state interests against individual rights. Any Supreme Court Justice or nominee who takes a strict constructionist view is arbitrarily weakening the court's long-established power as a check against the other branches. We already know that a few justices have already sold out to the President. We suspect that the Chief Justice and the current nominee will sell out as well.

[David Van Os]

12. It's a meaningless phrase...

...and the judges all know it.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DelawareValleyDem]

14. A phrase that tells more about the person using it

than it does about the jurist described. It means 'I don't like the ruling and am too dumb and lazy even to attempt understanding the reasoning behind it, so I'll dismiss it with this catch-phrase rather than try to rebut it with a cogent legal argument."

[TaleWgnDg]

15. how true ! . . . n/t

[Marie26]

16. Someone who doesn't agree with them.

If a conservative court suddenly decided to overturn a law like Roe w/30 years of precedent, I'm sure they'd have no problem w/that.

[Broken_Hero]

17. Yep, you hit the iceberg !...:)

Basically, someone making a ruling thy don't like, or agree with....:)