Fema Employment

What do people have against "judicial activism?"?

Isn't the entire point of the Judicial branch of government to be watchdogs and defenders of the US Constitution? So if Congress passes a law or the executive branch does something illegal, isn't it the job of the courts to strike down that action as unconstitutional. They are not legislating from the bench they are just interpreting certain laws or actions as unconstitutional and doing their job of checking the other two branches. And there are many examples of conservative activism such as striking down New Deal business regulations and economic legislation, the Bush v Gore case in 2000 and most recently when the 5 conservative justices overturned a 70 year old SC case that said the 2nd amendment was a collective right. courts never make law, they just strike down laws that go against the constitution therby invalidating them. THey didn't make law with Roe, the court ruled the aboriton ban went against the Constitution. Joe I agree with you that is precisely what the court does, invalidate laws that are unconstitutional. Farooq I agree the first step is the legislative body, but sometimes that doesn't work. Brown needed the court to invalidate Jim Crow, the southern legislature would never have done that. I don't agree with original intent, I believe you need to interpret the words of the Constitution and what they mean in todays time, not 230 years ago. No General MacArthur- the previous conservative administration shredded the COnstitution and consistently violated the law.

Public Comments

1. You are correct in the sense that judges are supposed to be sticking to the constitution, upholding and applying laws that are consistent with it and striking down those that aren't. That is NOT judicial activism. Judicial activism is when judges use the power of their bench to MAKE law or strike down those that they personally disagree with. It is completely wrong for them to do so, conservative OR liberal. Problem is that most of the constitution IS conservative, and hence conservatives don't really have a hard time applying the conservative constitution to their conservative laws. Liberals, however, cannot find the right to a house, the right to a job, the right to an education, the right to money, the right to health care etc in the constitution, just the right to bear arms and of due process. If the supreme court has the unchallenged power to make or change law, then you essentially have a 9-way dictatorship.
2. The interpret the law. The Legislative branch makes the law. When the judicial branch makes the law, the violate the constitution and undermine our system of government. Which is OK since judicial activists tend to be Liberals and have no problem imposing their rules.
3. Violates the separation of powers.
4. it gives them uncheched power....and violates the will of the people
5. Is that why conservative have been trying for ages to put pro-life judges in the supreme court. Oh no it is not to change it isn't it. F ing hypocrites.
6. First get your definitions correct. The court is suppose to interpet law as applied to legislative and administrative. Nothing is said of judicial activism, or making up law as you go. Congress makes the law not the court.
7. "Judicial Activism" is what lead to the success in Brown v Board of Education and Loving v Virginia. Those are probably two of the most important Supreme Court rulings in the history of the US. I'll stick with the activism. If it goes too far, Congress can always try to change the laws to comply with the standards set. Obviously the bar for that was set so high in both Brown and Loving as to be impossible. Lesser cases, such as the one on eminent domain a couple of years ago are easily rectified legislatively.
8. The Bush v Gore case was not judicial activism by the Supreme Court at all. It was the rogue Florida Supreme Court (composed of 3 democrats) which was activist. Gore wished to recount only 3 heavily democrat counties (Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach) instead of recounting the entire state. The Florida Court allowed the Gore procedure so Bush escalated it to the Supreme Court as an egregious violation of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed and harshly criticized the Florida Court for their outrageous abuse of power.
9. The problem starts when the media and people start referring to state or federal supreme court rulings as "The Supreme Court today legalized.....". They cannot legalize anything. Or believing the courts have the constitutional authority to dictate policy or legislate from the bench. They have no arm of enforcement, like the state and federal legislatures, governors and Presidents do. And when you allow non elected people without term limits to dictate policy and law, I hardly call that representative government.
10. Judicial activism is an issue Republicans have used for decades to criticize Democrats and liberals. All along, it really only meant any decision they disagreed with. This was really made clear by Bush vs. Gore, and also another theme they've been harping on for decades--states' rights. If you look at all the decisions that Republicans and Conservatives have called 'judicial activism' or 'legislating from the bench', you can see this very clearly. Going back to the Earl Warren court. If the court makes a decision you don't like, it's easier and more credible to argue 'They're not allowed to do that!' than simply 'I didn't agree with that decision.'
11. Yet another example of the conservatives embracing the propaganda tactics so eloquently described by Orwell. It's only "judicial activism" if it's in opposition to their beliefs. Cons have been taking away the discretionary power of the judiciary for years-mandatory minimum laws are an excellent example. They do it because they fear the inherent fairness of the Constitution.
12. The supreme court is supposed to make judgements based on the interpretation of the constitution and other law. An activist judge is someone who ignores the meaning of existing laws and over turns tham in order to decide policy. In a government for the people, of the people, and by the people, our representatives are the ones who make the laws. It is not the job of the supreme court to over rule the will of the people except in those cases where the law is deemed unconstitutional.
13. Yes but within the narrow confiens of the intentions. Using found petery from the constituion to justify what its writers did not intend is not protecting the republic, by tyranny. If there is a problem it the duty of citiznes and their representives to correct it, the whole purpose of democracy.
14. Judicial activism is NOT defined as striking down laws that are unconstitutional. It has never been defined as such, except by left-wingers who deliberately mischaracterize what conservatives are talking about. Judicial activism is creating laws or rights that did not exist, or usurping the power of the states to write their own laws. Roe v. Wade is an example of judicial activism, taking away the constitutional right of states to legislate the legality of abortion based on some mythical penumbra of privacy not found in the Constitution. Court-ordered school busing is also a good example. Judges actually forced schools to bus kids all over the district in order to achieve court-mandated racial quotas. There was no law that forced such a thing - it was an imposition of the judges' beliefs upon the people - it was tyranny, pure and simple. Activism has also occurred in those states where the supreme courts decided to create, out of thin air, the legality of same-sex marriage, and force it upon the people without their consent. There is no right to same-sex marriage implied anywhere. It is a wholly new and unprecedented right they simply created. That's tyranny. That's judicial activism. So now, you can no longer plead ignorance as your excuse for not having a clue as to what we're talking about.
15. When the courts make a decision one agrees with, one praises our system of checks and balances. When the courts make a decision one disagrees with, one howls about judicial activism.
16. there is a difference between upholding the constitution,and creating laws that are not there. none of the cases you listed were judicial activism. please do some research before you just tow the party line
17. The judges are not elected and they can seriously change the laws and the culture.
18. Actually Bush v Gore was the ruling which STOPPED the recount in several counties from going through. Florida election officials were already in the process of recounting the votes. What was asked of the SCOTUS was a ruling stating that they could continue the recount instead of catherine harris just giving the electoral votes to bush. The supreme court essentially said "yeah you're right we should recount, but it's already too late - screw it, call it for bush and by the way this ruling can never be used as precedent." Regardless of who you voted for (i voted for Bush) you have to admit that a recount is totally in line with the democratic process and the courts putting a stop to it undermines the voting process as a whole.
19. When you have a branch of government like the judicial branch operating with unlimited power you have what's known as an oligarchy, and this is unconstitutional . The fact that you even asked this question is a very disturbing sign that liberals are trying to shred the constitution and that their supporters have no problem with that. God bless. I have news for you, a court redefining words to create extra constitutional rights like the supreme court in Iowa did for homosexuals is indeed making law, whether you want to accept it or not.