Tom Maguire and Talk Left provide the two sides of the debate on this piece by Paul Gerwitz examining judicial activism.
Reader Interactions
4Comments
Comments are closed.
Trackbacks
-
Run, Kathy, Run!
Oh, I hope she wins the nomination. I think that the Dems might then have a chance. The woman has all of the wattage of dead firefly.
p.lukasiak
I think its clear that Scalia, Thomas, and Rhenqueist are highly activist judges…. not merely by Gerwitz’ definition, but in their willingness to ignore standing judicial precedent in favor of a completely ideological (and occasional, political–see Bush v. Gore) interpretation of the law of the land.
And that is really what is at stake in the question of O’Connor’s replacement — do we really want a judiciary that judges laws primarily based on their ideology? Common sense tells us “no” — that its critical that the law be “stable”, and changing the meaning of the Constitution and how laws are interpreted under it each time the ideological majority of the court changes is ill-advised.
gratefulcub
Really silly argument. You have activist judges, no you have activist judges.
Judges span from liberal activist judges to moderate judges to conservative activist judges. Bush wants more conservative activist judges. If I become president, I want more liberal judges (and a recount because there is no way I actually won). We can argue about who has more of them, but why bother.
And please oh pretty please, can we stop saying activist judges? Pleeeeeeaz
Sojourner
Sounds like a good definition of activism to me. The righties claim that the “liberal” justices are ignoring the law and making up their own. Turns out it’s the right-wingers, with Thomas the main culprit, who are doing it.
How ironic is that…