Activist Judges B.S.

Utah · #1 05-26-2005, 02:43 PM

The republicans are whining about activist judges. Their claim has obvious merit - imho. However, there solution isnt really to replace judges with those who apply strict adherence to the law. Rather, they want to put in place their own brand of activist judges. For example, here is a comment by Pryor,

"I believe that not only is [Roe] unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children.”

Huh? Why did he say the last sentence as it was not germaine to the question asked? His personal views are supposedly not important to a non-activist judge and thus it has no bearing. Now, after that sentence are we to believe he would strictly follow the law and sacrifice millions of children to death in the name of the law? Of course not. He would apply the same activist logic to his decisions.

Now, a great question for a democrat to have asked him is if he was willing to sacrifice all those lives to a strict reading of the law.

LaggyLou · #2 05-26-2005, 04:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The republicans are whining about activist judges. Their claim has obvious merit - imho.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, no. Most republicans slap the label "activist" on any decision they disagree with. So the vast majority of their whining has no merit whatsoever.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, a great question for a democrat to have asked him is if he was willing to sacrifice all those lives to a strict reading of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

You will find an amazing corrolation between what people subjectively believe the law should be and what they think it is.

fluxrad · #3 05-26-2005, 05:29 PM

These activist judges need to be stopped, no matter what you or your liberal cronies think!

I, for one, am sick and tired of these pompous eletists in black robes strutting about, acting like they constitute 1/3rd of the government!

Thank god people like Frist and DeLay have the courage and intestinal fortitude to put them in their place.

jaxmike · #4 05-26-2005, 05:47 PM

I have a very REAL problem with ANY judge who LEGISLATES from the bench. I don't care which political ideology they come from, legislation from the bench is WRONG and in complete violation of our constitution. Only Congress shall have the power to make laws.

[ QUOTE ]

Article I Section 8

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[/ QUOTE ]

fluxrad · #5 05-26-2005, 05:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have a very REAL problem with ANY judge who LEGISLATES from the bench.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely you have numerous examples of this rampant legislation from the bench.

hetron · #6 05-26-2005, 09:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The republicans are whining about activist judges. Their claim has obvious merit - imho. However, there solution isnt really to replace judges with those who apply strict adherence to the law. Rather, they want to put in place their own brand of activist judges. For example, here is a comment by Pryor,

"I believe that not only is [Roe] unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children.”

Huh? Why did he say the last sentence as it was not germaine to the question asked? His personal views are supposedly not important to a non-activist judge and thus it has no bearing. Now, after that sentence are we to believe he would strictly follow the law and sacrifice millions of children to death in the name of the law? Of course not. He would apply the same activist logic to his decisions.

Now, a great question for a democrat to have asked him is if he was willing to sacrifice all those lives to a strict reading of the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

You seem surprised. Why? Didn't you see what happened with Terri Schiavo? The judges applied the law properly. It was not pretty, but the judge adhered to the law. Instead of congratulating him for his strict (and correct) interpretation, he was treated to vague threats by the No.2 man in the Senate!

The anti-"judge activist" sentiment emanating from the Republican Party is a joke. What they really want to do is eliminate judges who are pro-choice and recognize the division between church and state.

elwoodblues · #7 05-26-2005, 10:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have a very REAL problem with ANY judge who LEGISLATES from the bench

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. I think we should get rid of the whole body of tort law --- after all it was created by judges legislating from the bench. Negligence, assault, defamation, who needs it??? Who do those judges think they are? Do they think that we live in a country whose law is both code based and common-law based??? They really need a history lesson.

JackWhite · #8 05-26-2005, 10:35 PM

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.

Utah · #9 05-26-2005, 10:48 PM

Okay, I will admit I am stupid. Isn't tort law simply law that is based on civil damages? Does the legislature not set those laws? If not, why wouldnt they?

Couldnt one say that common law is simply the interpetation of code law and that common law is used to settle interpetation disputes and not to legislate?.

elwoodblues · #10 05-26-2005, 10:56 PM

Tort law is not based on statutes. It is judge-made law. You won't find a general negligence statute in the vast majority of states (I suspect you won't find it in any).

[ QUOTE ]
Couldnt one say that common law is simply the interpetation of code law

[/ QUOTE ]

No.