Activist judges have been circumventing the proper checks and balances, writing public policy that hasn't been approved by the legislature. Recently it has been by allowing gay marriages, just because laws protecting the sanctity of marriage are "unconstitutional".
But the problem with activist judges is a lot older than the gay marriage issue. For example, a judge in Worcester, Mass heard a case between a slave and his master in 1783. He ruled that slavery was not legally sanctioned in the state of Massachusetts, so all slaves in the state were free. So just because there wasn't technically any law authorizing the sale of humans into permanent servitude, this lone, activist judge cheated hundreds of law-abiding citizens out of their property! Instead of letting the voters decide, through their duly elected representatives in Congress - which they did a mere 80 years later.
What else will these activist judges decide is "unconstitutional"?
2007-02-11 10:53:51 · 16 answers · asked by abram.kelly 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
The ability of some people to utterly miss the point - it scares me, sometimes.
Let's look closely at what I am saying here. I am equating the ruling in favor of gay marriage with the judicial abolition of slavery, 80 years before the 13th Amendment passed. So it is possible that I am against gay marriage and in favor of slavery. Alternately, I could be making a satiric point about judges being lightyears ahead of Congress. Which option makes more sense to you?
2007-02-11 11:28:36 · update #1
Damn those Constitutions! Judges use them for horrible things like freeing slaves and giving basic rights and dignity to people!
By the way, did you know which Supreme Court Justice is the most "activist" in terms of voting to change laws?
Antonin Scalia - the guy who complains the most about judicial activism. Such a hypocrit!
2007-02-11 11:26:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
That's the law, judges view the law as they seem fit as they view the Constitution. Whenever I hear "activist judges" it always seems to come from the right wing. Never a peep how the Scalias and Clarence "I've never thought about abortion or talked dirty to Anita Hill" Thomas come up with their decisions.
The GOP had control over the appointment process for the past 6 years. Let's see what they have put on the bench - Miers (Supreme Court nominee with ZERO qualifications) or the shoplifting fool, Claude Allen, hopefully are not typical. True, they were not put on the bench, but if they are the type of nominees Bush and his fools put forward, the court system will be in trouble for years.
2007-02-11 11:05:48 · answer #2 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
there has been an onslaught of judges who make decisions to leverage political agendas. The weak link in our system of so called checks and balances are the courts with judges who take it upon themselves to interpret the law any way they see fit. They are puppets of the left and are making a mockery of our judicial system. Meanwhile, we have complacent voters who will not even take the trouble to go to the polls at voting time. Go figure.
2007-02-11 11:50:45 · answer #3 · answered by Mon-chu' 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
judges are very limited in what they can do as regards law they can only interpret the law as it is written as long it does not contradict the ruling of a higher court. So basically if the legislature write laws badly it allows judges that leeway.
2007-02-11 11:06:41 · answer #4 · answered by mixturenumber1 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Activists are people who piss, moan, and prosper while exploiting people instead of finding an honest job. Those here illegally are already criminals just for being here and have no defense.
2016-05-23 22:45:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A great way to stop it is to never, NEVER EVER allow Congressional Lawyers to get the Executive Seat!
Combine that with Keeping Libs OUT of the Executive and we wind up with fewer and fewer Lib Justices every Day!
2007-02-11 11:19:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
You bet!
Especially Laws that allow rich people to steal your homes = Republican Supreme Court
2007-02-11 22:56:26 · answer #7 · answered by Taco . 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
After we stop the Unitary Executive and Signing Statements coming from the Executive Branch, THEN let's talk about the Judiciary.
2007-02-11 11:07:40 · answer #8 · answered by ck4829 7 · 2⤊ 2⤋
What you fail to realize is that judges do not wright the laws. They only look at the cases presented to them and make a decision based on the laws that are already in place that were made by politicians.
2007-02-11 10:58:08 · answer #9 · answered by greencoke 5 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Well apparently these 'Activist Judges' are 80 years ahead of their time, now aren't they. You are sick!
Stev....You failed to realize that Bush has been changing the Constitution. Ever here of the 'Patriot Act'? So I think you answer is a little slurred. If you haven't realized these 'Activist Judges' use judgement that is humane. Oh and judges don't write laws.
2007-02-11 10:58:22 · answer #10 · answered by jpferrierjr 4 · 3⤊ 4⤋