People complain about activist judges, shouldn't they complain about the lawmakers making laws vague?

Question

Let's face it, if the lawmakers wrote the laws clear enough, the judges would not have the leeway to interoperate laws in a way that the law was not meant to be.

So why do we blame the judges, when the blame clearly should fall on the shoulders of congress for bad legislation?

Regerug - Judges do not write laws, they never have even once.

They have struck down laws that are unconstitutional.

They do set legal presidence with existing law by changing it with interperatation.

Vastrightwingconspiricy - The second ammendment should have been made clearer with a simple statement describing the necessity of the 2nd amendment to give the people the tools to overthrow the government if the need arises....again.

Also there is nothing in the 1st amendment giving christians the right to use public facilities as a billboard to endorse religion.

Furthermore, I see the Executive branch violating the 1st more than any other branch with the creation of the "office of faith based initiatives" and free speech zones.

De viking - The only judges that are seated for life are on the supreme court.

I can't argue with any of the rest of your post.

Flightleader - good answer, but unfortunately, if the law was not vague they would not be able to change it.

Per the constitution, the judges are the arbiters of law and are stuck with the responsibility of enforcing, throwing out or interperating vague laws.

Answer 1

Good point. People who decry "activist judges" are really just creating a scapegoat to blame for the reason life isn't going their way.

Answer 2

Both are a problem but it is the activism of judges which provides cover for the vagueries of the Legislature. When judges take it upon themselves to rectify Legislative error and perceived oversight they have gone beyond the limits of their authority. And when this happens at the Federal level, it is unconstitutional. Judges should enforced the laws as they exist and when this proves impossible, those laws should be struck down by the appellate courts, not “fixed.” And even this power should be used with extreme caution. We should also never allow administrative (quasi-judicial) agencies to create and/or interpret laws. The very essence of democracy and representative government is that laws are created by those individuals duly elected by the people as their representatives.

Note this from the dissenting opinion in Plyer v Doe: “….the Constitution does not constitute us as "Platonic Guardians" nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, "wisdom," or "common sense." We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role......”

“….. when this Court rushes in to remedy what it perceives to be the failings of the political processes, it deprives those processes of an opportunity to function. When the political institutions are not forced to exercise constitutionally allocated powers and responsibilities, those powers, like muscles not used, tend to atrophy."

Answer 3

I agree, I think lawmakers should make laws that are very specific. Here are a few that would be sufficient.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "

no wait... Guess not. Lawmakers make laws with a specific purpose that is obvious in the laws and in the history and in any sort fo circumstantial evidence around the law. The intent is obvious, judges choose to ignore the intent and legislate new meaning into the same words.

Answer 4

A lot of what people claim they want is simply against what the Constitution allows.
When a judge backs up the Constitution, they howl.
If the lawmakers wrote laws that were legal in the first place, instead of pandering to the wings of each party, there wouldn't be this problem. They know it, but they can go home and tell their constituents look, we tried, but those damned activist, liberal judges shot us down.

Answer 5

the sole difficulty I actual have with it somewhat is the violation of the rights of states who chosen to restrict the prepare. (Article 4 section a million)... I understand DOMA fixes that, yet erasing element of the form that doesn't agree inclusive of your politics can't be the respond. the sole actual answer to the priority is a Constitutional substitute defining marriage. in my opinion, i do no longer care how that's defined... in spite of the undeniable fact that it is the sole way around the states rights undertaking.

Answer 6

YES. The problem is that "activist" judges are much easier targets than legislatures. That means that "watchdogs" can go after a person instead of a system. That, my friend, sells copy.

Answer 7

Activist Judges should leave there personal ideas and political parties at home and not bring them to the court room. Bottom line.

Answer 8

good point but wait:

1. we elect the lawmakers -- so really we are at fault
2. activist judges are seated for life -- we do not control them
no can we get rid of them (unless they do an illegal act)
3. congress puts them on the bench -- again we are at fault
since we elect congress

Answer 9

Activist judges are just that...writing their own laws. Activists in Congress are always writing bad laws. Both groups are to blame.