Are judges really 'activist', or do conservatives just not like their rulings?

Answer 1

I think you've answered your own question...

Answer 2

Being an activist judge means your ruling is intended to establish law by setting a precedent. While judges can do this, they are only supposed to do so when laws and rulings are not clearly established. Some judges do this specifically to legislate from the bench and redefine laws, these are activist judges. They are overstepping and abusing their power. Most of these activist judges are liberal, and of course conservatives disapprove of this misuse of power, but not all of them are.

Answer 3

Yes, they are really "activist".

Let's look at some landmark activist rulings.

School Busing. After segregation was ruled illegal, some judges decided that because big city school districts had de-facto segregation due to self-segregated neighborhoods (black neighborhoods had mostly black schools, white neighborhoods had mostly white schools), they decided that forcing integration was the way to meet desegregation laws.

Now, does a federal judge have any authority to force school districts to ship kids to far-off schools because of the color of their skin? Can you find that clause in the Constitution? I can't.

Roe v Wade is another activist decision (aka: constitutional abomination). Finding in the penumbras and aura and emanations (i.e. fabricating) the federal right to kill your unborn baby is not what judges should be doing - it violates the concepts of federalism. This was a state law concern prior to this. It should have remained a state law concern.

I would also say that this activism includes the rulings that support the Federal Gov't's ability to prevent state legalization of marijuana, even for medical use.

One must also look at the courts of Mass and NJ which decided, without the vote of the people or their elected representatives, that same-sex marriage was suddenly legal. That is, 4 people made this very important and controversial without and legal standing to do so.

It's not whether you agree with the decision or not, it is whether the decision was made within the bounds and limitation of the Constitution. If you support using the courts to shove laws down the throats of the people, bypassing their democratically elected representatives, that is a grave violation of their rights, a grave disfranchisement, a step towards tyranny.

Answer 4

the law says judges can not write law.. only apply it..

so when a judge writes a law.. he is no longer a judge.. he is acting as a dictator.. or king and side stepping the law...


laws are written by politicans only... judges can not write them..

take for example.... US law says nothing about putting kids on a bus and moving them around... to meet some % in each school...a judge came along and said.. I think it is better for the world if this happens so he orders it so....

this is an activist... no matter if you agree or disagree with the ruling... he can not make this discision.. only politicans can..

or what about this.. some of the people on the far left wing.. want welfair.. or to take money from the "rich" but US law forbids the taking of ones property.. now if say a liberal judge was to try and force a law that said you can only make x number of dollars in a year.. it would be in violation of US law and he would be an activits... dont lesson to the far left or the far right... they are all tards

also would like to say many on the "left" also claim judges to be activist... so your question is kind of.... written wrong

Answer 5

Am I going to get into this back with you, Kevin? A in charge, discplined decide is one which translates written rules the way that those have been meant to be interpreted, it quite is, in accordance to the unique reason of the lawmakers. An activist decide believes that he can supply the guidelines a this potential that he's familiar with is HIS very own favourite theory of what are sturdy rules, and purely PRETENDS that his end got here from an objective interpretation of the written rules. in the Loving case, all 9 Justices unanimously agreed that rules against interracial marriage have been violative of the equivalent risk-free practices Clause of the 14th modification. All 9 of the Justices knew that the equivalent risk-free practices Clause replaced into meant to limit racial discrimination. a number of those 9 Justices have been believers that the *unique reason* could continuously administration their judgements, and the others believed that they don't could cut back the which potential of the equivalent risk-free practices Clause to purely racial discrimination, despite the fact that there's no different ordinary objective to the Clause. The latter team of Justices have been and are the activist judges. The equivalent risk-free practices Clause of the 14th modification does not advise what it actually says, it replaced into under no circumstances meant to limit discrimination in accordance with sexual orientation. the adult males who proposed and ratified the 14th modification could have under no circumstances supported that concept. most of the contributors of the U. S. perfect court docket in 1967 does not have interpreted the equivalent risk-free practices Clause that way, the two, btw. nonetheless, the Justices who wanted to amplify the which potential of the Clause to matters different than race have been the activist judges. They have been making new regulation, not *analyzing* the 14th modification.

Answer 6

A few judges are really activist, and should never have gotten to the bench. Check your Trial Lawyers Association ratings on your local judges and vote not to retain them if the lawyers have given them a bad rating. We had two really bad ones who got ratings in the 20-30% approval area and voted not to retain them in the last midterm election voting.

Answer 7

Judges are only considered "activist" if their opinions and rulings are not lock step with the conservative right. Activist is another word dreamed up my neocons to paint a negative upon anyone who may put personal liberty ahead of corporate greed.

Answer 8

Not all judges are "liberal," and few of them are actually "activists."

A lot of people don't seem to understand what 'activist' means; it refers to someone who goes out and actively participates in rallies, protests & such for a cause. (Judges rarely have the time to do so, even if they were so inclined.)

Extreme conservatives just dislike their rulings, because lately the courts have been striking down attempts to limit freedoms, instead of passively backing up extremist agendas.

Answer 9

they are activist.

Answer 10

YES, & YES