"Activist Liberal Judge"

We briefly discussed the labeling of judges in another thread: Life tenure for federal judges.







When the federal government opens its purse, it can attach strings to the money it hands out. A state is free to reject federal money or accept the money, but when the state accepts the money -- it must also accept the strings attached. Accordingly, when a state accepts federal money to fund state welfare programs (e.g., Medicaid) for indigent families and children, the state must comply with federal rules and regulations concerning program requirements.

When George W. Bush was governor of Texas, the State of Texas took federal money to fund welfare programs, but failed to comply with federal rules and regulations concerning program requirements. In 1996, the State of Texas agreed to make improvements to its Medicaid program in order comply with federal regulations. The State of Texas continued thereafter to take federal money, but failed to make the promised improvements to its Medicaid program.

In 2000, a federal judge ruled that the State of Texas had not adequately cared for 1.5 million low-income youngsters by its failure to live up up to a 1996 agreement to make major improvements to its Medicaid program.

George W. Bush was campaigning for the presidency at that time, and in response to the federal court ruling, Bush criticized the judge as "an activist, liberal judge."

Was the problem the JUDGE who simply applied the law to the facts and found that the State of Texas failed to comply with its agreement? Does the Judge deserve criticism? Does labeling the judge "an activist, liberal judge" somehow make the ruling an evil thing?

George W. Bush then criticized the federal government for refusing to grant waivers that would have made the process easier for Texas. (See article: Judge: Texas Medicaid Fails Children.)

OKAY. It wasn't the judge's ruling that needs to be criticized. There was no activism involved in the ruling. There was no "liberal" vs. "conservative" thing going on in the case. The simple fact was that the State of Texas took federal money (with the strings attached) and then asked the federal government to waive the strings to make things easier for Texas. Just give us federal money funded by federal taxpayer dollars and keep your nose out of our business. Even though every other state in the union must comply with federal regulations to be eligible for federal funding . . . WE WANT A WAIVER.

Does Bush get a great big pat on the back for criticising the judge as "an activist, liberal judge," when all the judge did was properly rule that the State of Texas failed to live up to its agreement (when it took federal money) to provide appropriate care for 1.5 million low income children? It it the judge's fault that the federal government wouldn't just GIVE the federal money to the State of Texas and waive the requirements attached to the federal money?

Just because George W. Bush (or anybody else) accuses a judge of being "an activist, liberal judge" that doesn't make the accusation true. The judge merely did his job. Bush was merely using a catch phrase with negative connotations to divert attention away from the truth. He does this all the time.

I know that there are some judges who sit on the bench and allow their personal beliefs to influence some of their decisions, (e.g., Justice Scalia), but why is there so much political hoopla about "activist liberal judges?" Isn't that merely a personal attack that people use to explain a court ruling when neither the law nor the facts are on their side?