Why do Conservatives complain about an activist Supreme Court?

Question

Don't they realize that in the past 40 years that all but TWO Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Republicans?

Roe vs. Wade and every other Abortion decision were made by predominately Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices.

Answer 1

Yes, Nixon appointed the judges who would later make abortion legal. It seems that every judge is appointed by republicans who are usually conservative yet, the judges changed over the years. They aren't going to have the same beliefs they once had when they took office. They changed, it's a common fact. They tend to become more progressive.

Answer 2

There are liberal Republicans. It use to be the Democrats that were the conservative ones (remember southern segregation and Democrats not wanting women to vote?).

Most of the problems deal with the lower courts. A Federal judge prevented the military from using military equipment such as a sonar device (since when does a judge command troops?), some judges believe in contempt of court (so these guys can do to anybody what George Bush did to some alledged terrorists, one judge here put a lawyer he saw on the street in jail because he didn't like how the guy was dressed and the lawyer didn't even have a case before the judge), one judge in California is forcing California to pay to upgrade a prison system even though constitutionally it's congresses job to pay for things. Some judges have sued foriegn governments and one judged ruled about internet policy (since the internet is an internationally nuetral area, why would anybody allow a judge to have jurisdiction there?).

Answer 3

Actually there were three Justices appointed by Democrats in the last 40 years, Thurgood Marshall was appointed by LBJ. It's important to realize that Republican and Conservative are not synonymous terms. In terms of controlling Federal spending the two most conservative Presidents were Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. George W. Bush, contrary to the delusions of the loony left, is not a conservative. For example Bush has increased the Department of Education budget by something like 80% over his term, whereas Bill Clinton's administration increased it by only 17%. The true conservative position is that there should not be a federal Department of Education, schools should be run by state and local governments, or private firms. The current Administration's record on entitlement spending is just as bad from a conservative point of view. A truly conservative administration would have only six Cabinet departments: Treasury, Justice, Defense, Commerce, Interior, and Transportation, with Veterans Affairs being part of the Defense Department, Agriculture being part of the Commerce Department, and the State Department being handled by the Diplomatic Corps, as part of the Office of the President.

Answer 4

It really all boils down to 2 things 1. Roe vs Wade.
2. Separation of the different branches of government.

1. Roe vs. Wade was a decision made by the court that drastically altered law. It was a decision that was hugely unpopular with many people and is seen as an attack on their beliefs and life itself. No people got to participate in making this a law, it was just rammed down America's throat with no voting.

2. The Judicary branch is supposed to INTERPRET the law NOT make it.

It's really that simple. The laws are supposed to come from the legislative branch from elected representatives with the people's representation. This is a direct correlary to the "no taxation without representation" that was a cause of our revolution in the first place.

Answer 5

Well it comes down to Constructionist views most conservatives hold that when it comes to constitutional law thee courts should stick to what the document says and not what they think it means.

Either way on the issue of Roe vs Wade. Legal scholars while they may support or not support the outcome almost universally criticize the law or methodology of basing the decision on the right to privacy. Again I am not implying that legal scholars are all pro-life that is far from the truth they are as divided on the subject as the rest of us. I am saying most of them think it was bad law and the legal methodology in support of the decision was severely flawed. Some scholars give other grounds that would of better supported the decision but almost all say it was bad law as it stands. This is where judicial activism comes in When judges asign rights not stated in the constitution or derive further rights from those that are stated that it for one degrades the concept of constitutional law and subjects the concept of judicial precedent to the whims or politically minded individuals. Either way if you agree with the outcome or not it is a prime example of how judicial activism can lead to flawed law..

Answer 6

Where do you get the idea that republican appointed means conservative.We have two new appointees one of which many of us are not sure was a good choice.
Judges have no ability to either make law or direct the creation of law.They can only determine if law is constitutional and execute the laws on the books.

Answer 7

They are only called activist judges when they don't rule in the ultra-conservatives favor. Case in point: Massachusetts and same-sex marriage. Most of the judges involved were appointed by Republicans as well. They interpreted their state's constitution, as they are required to do, and ruled per their interpretation, as they are required to do. Nothing activist about it, they did their jobs. But since the far right didn't get their way, they are activist judges by God, even the President calls them that. It's really sort of ludicrous.

Answer 8

It is the abortion issue that really impacts on Republican and their belief. In my opinion, we all have to watch and see. The court is changing and people have to understand that it is 21TH century and the Supreme Courts are very intelligent people and they will vote for the right of his or her people.It is not a party or religion believe anymore.

Answer 9

And the two that weren't include Ruth 'Gator' Ginsburg, or Woman without a Soul. This human hater has been pushing communist ideals ever since she's been on the bench. This is an example of "stench from the bench", as Michael Savage would put

Answer 10

They had no problem with the Court over Florida in 2000.' It is just another straw dog, but it does raise concern about the level of objection to those that offer views other than their own. As long as everyone can express their view openly we are all ok. We are flirting with the disaster of censorship in society and here on Yahoo.