Activist Judges B.S.

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me the quote from the Constitution relating to protecting abortion. You honestly believe that those of us who haven't found it simply don't believe in separation of church and state? I believe in that separation, but I also believe in the Constitution as written, not as you would like it to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no section in the Constitution relating to abortion. But that doesn't stop conservatives from using abortion rulings as a "litmus test" to see if the judges they back cut the mustard. Which is my whole point. This anti judicial activism front the Republicans are throwing up is a charade. They are only interested in judges who interpret the law the way THEY want it, and if that is strict interpretation good, and if it's not that is good as well. I cited the Terri Schiavo affair as a case in point. I see you didn't mention it at all. I wonder why [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[JackWhite]

I agree that they should be consistent. Everyone must believe in following the law. I will grant you that. But on the Roe V. Wade question, I believe that is a fair litmus test. If judges believe in making up rights that don't exist, that is scary, IMO, and they should be blocked. I don't care what rights they are inventing, that is irrelevant.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
No.

[/ QUOTE ]

uhhhh.....okay. Then common law is a violation of the balance of powers and it should never be used under any circumstance unless we change the very nature of how our government operates. So there.

...and one could say that.

[slamdunkpro]

The first one that comes to my mind is Bush Vs Gore in the Florida Supreme Court. The Fla. Legislature had defined in detailed laws the electoral procedure for delegating electoral college members. Gore sued and got the Fl Supremes to “interpret” the law somewhat differently “in the interest of fairness”. In other words, the Democrats in the Court rewrote/ignored State election codes to press their party’s agenda.

Whether you agree or disagree with the result, if you look up the exact statutes and read the Court’s ruling – The judiciary created law.

[andyfox]

A good book, although not a great read, is John T. Noonan Jr.'s Narrowing the Nation's Power: The Supreme Court Sides With the States. It shows how, within the years from 1996 to 2002 (when the book came out) the Supreme Court used the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity to shield the states from damages for age discrimination, disability discrimination, and the violation of patents, trademarks and copyrights, and fair labor standards. And not just the states themselves--also every state-sponsored institution (a state insurance corporation, a state university's research lab, etc.).

The Supreme Court invented two rules: the first was that Congress must establish a documentary record that a national evil exists before Congress can legislate to protect life, liberty, or property under the 14th Amendement. And the second was that the response of Congress to said evil must then be both "congruent" and "proportionate." And it is the Supreme Court, of course, that determines whether these standards are met.

Noonan is a conservative but says that "the terms ['activist judge' and 'strict constructionist'] should be banished because they cannot distinguish one set of judges from another. The present court is composed of judges often categorized as conservative but in fact highly original in their treatment of the constituion. It is an illusion to suppose that they are less inventive than their predecessors in their interpretation of constitutional texts."

[hetron]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that they should be consistent. Everyone must believe in following the law. I will grant you that. But on the Roe V. Wade question, I believe that is a fair litmus test. If judges believe in making up rights that don't exist, that is scary, IMO, and they should be blocked. I don't care what rights they are inventing, that is irrelevant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm...news flash. The tenth amendment specifically states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

That means judges don't have to make up rights; in most cases you have the right to do something as long as it is not unconstitutional and is not against the law in your state.

[JackWhite]

Couldn't agree more, but when was the last time the 10th admendment was invoked to overturn a federal law? A strict reading of the 10th would prohibit much of the federal governments powers, which might not be a bad thing.

My point about inventing rights is when they find rights that are not in the 10th amendment, or anywhere else. Or as Kennedy recently did when he invoked International standards on the death penalty case. I found that frightening. A supreme court justice believing that international opinion should be a guide for his decisions, not the US Constitution.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
A supreme court justice believing that international opinion should be a guide for his decisions, not the US Constitution.


[/ QUOTE ]

International law has been used as persuasive authority since, literally, 1776.

[vulturesrow]

In 1776, it made sense. Now it doesnt. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[JackWhite]

International law has been used as persuasive authority since, literally, 1776. [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Where is it written that a Supreme Court Justice should rely on International law or opinion instead of what is written in the US Constitution? Most countries don't have a First Amendment equivelant. Recently in Italy (a few days ago) a writer was charged with a crime for criticizing Islam. Should a Supreme Court justice take into account laws in other countries that criminalize speech?