What can be done to deter judges from legislating law from the bench?

Question

Many judges violate the boundaries of their office by legislating from the bench. What can be done to deter abuse by judges that are essentially subversive to the letter and spirit of the U.S. Constitution?

Answer 1

remind the judges that we have a constitution and that legislation by judicial review is a form of dicatorship that does not include a majority vote.

shame on these black robed people, reminds you of a kkk mentality with the law on their side because they can call it on a daily basis.

Answer 2

Not much if anything. Judges do it all the time. Which is why some states have passed minimum sentence laws, which are not a very good thing either. Judges as a rule will always bent the rights of citizens if they are arrested and disregard our rights.

Illegal searches happen all the time and even if proven to be so, most Judges just allow the evidence anyway. Most Judges, even Supreme court Justices make decisions based on what they feel is right instead of the Constitution.

This can be seen in our own Senate hearings. Justice Alito was asked during his confirmation hearing if he would stand up for the little guy. To which he said the right answer, only if the little guy is right. But my point is that the Senator that asked that question was way off base in asking it. The Supreme Court Justices are only charged with finding whether or not a legal point is constitutional, nothing else.

State Supreme courts very often make decisions based on political beliefs rather then the law and the constitution. A good example of that was the Florida Supreme court in the 2000 election case. They tried to change the law in Florida, from the bench, so that Al Gore could win the election.

Answer 3

Nothing. Laws can be made by passing acts such as Crimes Acts etc. Laws are also made by previous decisions from previous cases where a decision on a point of law is required. Any given act will always contain sections which will require interpretation to fit many different situations. In addition a lower court is bound by a decision of a higher court, so decisions made by judges will often reflect previous decisions. So the law is not only comprised of the acts it covers, but previous decisions regarding its interpretation. This is known as precedents. However, if the case differs markedly from previous cases, then it is up to the opposing sides to argue their cases and the judge decides. This is the nature of the beast. All of the above is why appointments to the higher courts are highly political, because every government, when they appoint these judges, wants to appoint judges who will fall in line with their ethos and philosophy, thereby making it easier for them to govern according to their policies. So it begs the question: just who is the subversive one and who is manipulating who? It is not an easy question to answer.

Answer 4

that is merely the way conservatives spin it. In genuine existence, judges from each achieveable political perspective often times legislate from the bench, and there is no thanks to tutor that liberal judges do it better than any others. even as a choose says he's following a regulation actually he continues to be examining it merely as a lot as even as a choose says he's following the reason behind a regulation, or the spirit of a regulation. each perspective is an perspective.

Answer 5

Nothing, everytime a judge renders a decision it is law. If it happens to be a decision with a big impact, it remains as a precedent.

Answer 6

Write better laws the first time.

Answer 7

the state legislatures should be able to force judges out of their judgeship if they make laws or interpret laws to their view instead of upholding the law as it is written...

Answer 8

FILE A COMPLAINT WITH YOUR STATE JUDICIAL OFFICE
A JUDGE IS NOT TO INTERPET THE LAWS ONLY ENFORCE THEM, ALSO NOT ALLOWED TO MAKE LAWS EITHER/FACT