The concept of 'activist judges'

Quote:

You are wrong about Bush and Kerry.

Here's what you said Bush said: : We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God. And those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench.

Here is what Bush really said in the second debate and nowhere in his response did he mention God.

Quote:

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Here is what Kerry said:

Quote:

Now, I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade.

He has said that he wouldn't allow someone to come in and change abortion that would mean he would not allow a judge on the SC who didn't support abortion. If a new case came up on the issue, then he would want a judge that wouldn't consider the issue and just rule against it based on how that judge already feels. If all he ever has in the SC were pro-abortion judges then how would a new case be fair?

Quote:

So, according to Baldimo, the 9-0 decision of Brown v. Kansas Board of Education "is not the way our nation should be run."

I do not think you have any understanding of what the Constitution was attmpting to do. Its intent was not merely to set up a political system where the majority ruled. More important was that it set up guidelines where the minority was protected from the majority.

Can you please tell me where it says this in the constitution?

It does mention voting in the constitution and what it takes for something to win a vote and what it takes to pass a law, and it is majority rule.

It appears you don't understand how the court system works. Judges can not come in and overturn prior rulings. The case must be brought before them which usually means a case similar enough that they revisit a prior ruling. This is extremely rare.

Since the USSC ruled on Roe v Wade, any similar case brought before a lower court MUST be ruled on in light of the higher court ruling. This makes it highly unlikely for the USSC to accept a case similar to Roe. In fact, the court would have to ignore the precedents it set and agree to take a case that was ruled on as they said it must be. Under the way the court works, it would require an "activist" court to overturn Roe. Kerry's statement is interesting in that it is precisely what the law requires, respect for previous court rulings.

If this were indeed that case then how was it that the USSC ruled in the opposite way in the Lawrence vs. Texas case? They made a new ruling and didn't even take into account the previous case, which was only about 17 years old.

but this Court's obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate its own moral code,

Kerry didn't say he wouldn't appoint judges who wanted to overturn Roe v Wade. Bush wouldn't appoint such a judge either.

What goes on the privacy of the home beween consenting adults is nobody's business and I don't know any conservatives or liberals who think it should be. I know there are some nuts out there who favor some kind of morality policing, but they have to be a tiny tiny majority and come from the far ends of both left and right. (Extreme conservatives might not want you to have weird sex while extreme liberals don't want you to smoke or wear fur, etc.)

Homosexuality - The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be resented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Texas Sodomy Statutes - The Party opposes the legalization of sodomy. The Party demands Congress exercise its
authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

In her prepared remarks, Marshall said: "Judges do become the focus of attack politics. It has been so since our country's founding and is certainly evident in the heated political climate today."

But, she added, "It would be foolish, in my judgment, to heed the voices of those who would curtail a judge's independence. . . . It would be foolish to tinker with the [John] Adams model of constitutional government that has served us so well for more than two centuries."

Foxfyre wrote:

What goes on the privacy of the home beween consenting adults is nobody's business and I don't know any conservatives or liberals who think it should be. I know there are some nuts out there who favor some kind of morality policing, but they have to be a tiny tiny majority and come from the far ends of both left and right. (Extreme conservatives might not want you to have weird sex while extreme liberals don't want you to smoke or wear fur, etc.)

And you make that statement as a former Texan that has expressed familiarity with the Texas Republican Party Platform from which are these excerpts?

Quote:

Homosexuality - The Party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be resented as an acceptable "alternative" lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should "family" be redefined to include homosexual "couples." We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values.
Texas Sodomy Statutes - The Party opposes the legalization of sodomy. The Party demands Congress exercise its
authority granted by the U.S. Constitution to withhold jurisdiction from the federal courts from cases involving sodomy.

Texas Republican Party Platform

I am not sure what you mean by "a tiny tiny majority", is that like 50.001% ? Whatever number though, it appears to be large enough for the republican party to suck up to.

If you really think that all Republicans think this way then you are wrong. I don't agree with homosexuality but I wouldn't want a law that restricted it. Let people do what they wish in the privacy of their own home. When that behavior appears outside of the home or hurts those in the home then the law should step in, but only then. I do think that the federal court system should stay out of state politics.

The sad and shocking element of Scalia's criticism is his absolute and inexcusable ignorance. Our government is NOT a pure democracy; our government is a republic wherein individual rights are protected against the whims of mob rule.

Is not a legislative system where a large group of individuals, serving at the pleasure of the citizens, enact laws more consistent with the notion of democracy than one where a relative handful of appointed individuals, serving (for all intents and purposes), for life, do so?

Mob rule (a pure democracy) might demand the death penalty for rapists or horse thieves. At one time it did. But the Constitution protects individuals from cruel and unusual punishment. If the punishment is not proportionate to the crime, it is cruel. The Supreme Court must step in and declare that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment in certain circumstances.

Agreed, when their judgment of what punishment is disproportionate to which crimes can, without ambiguity, be predicated upon a clearly expressed intent of the Constitution or is consistent with the prevailing sense of equity within society.

Judicial intervention in the hanging of a modern day horse thief would hardly cause a stir in the general populace. Not so, however, in the case of a convicted murderer. Perhaps someday society's prevailing sense of equity will not include executing murderers, but this isn't the case now, and it isn't the role of judges to advance their personal notion of social evolution.

Every judicial intervention is not a defense against mob rule.

Neither Justice Scalia nor any of our other Justices sitting on the bench of the Supreme Court may abdicate their proper roles in our government built upon the concept of checks and balances. When the voters or the people the voters elect to office act in an unconstitutional manner, the courts must step in when called upon to do so and correct the wrong. This is not "activism" on the part of the members of the judiciary -- it's their sworn DUTY.

Of course it is and Scalia is hardly arguing otherwise.

The point of disagreement arises in determining when the voters or their elected representatives are acting in an unconstitutional manner.

That determination is not to be based on the personal sense of equity or morality of any judge. It must rest upon a legal foundation.

So called activist judges are those who consistently seek to break new ground, who seek to speed up their vision of social evolution.

That their vision may coincide with mine or yours doesn't make them right.