Redstate

The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple

I am not aware of any judges that I would classify as both activist and right in the modern era.

I was going to ask the same question. There are some, I do not know if SteveLA is one, who worry that overturning a previous ruling is being an activist judge on the right. Overturning is not the same as creating a new law. Overturning just places the issue back into the hands of the legislative branch of the government.


The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple

pilgrim

I'm probably not a fan of wholesale overturning of any past ruling, causes too much upheaval based on other rulings that use the original as a cornerstone. Different story about incrementally chipping away at the rough edges of a decision that may have gone too far.

One example is the Death penalty rulings where the Supremes have been all over the map. That all over the map rulings of the Supremes has caused a whole bunch of problems for the states justice system, and I believe does society no good.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

forget the BMW or not.

Baby gets to live.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

game

You just showed why I probably disagree with just about everything you have to say on this topic with this comment.

It's rude it's crude and it's just about the last thing to say to someone that might agree with you that abortions are bad and should be reduced and restricted if not stopped outright. It's also why reasonable attempts to dial back abortion are undermined and loose elections thanks to bomb throwers like you.

In California, the last two attempts to add parental notification on abortion have failed thanks to the words of people like you and the moral superiority your words convey. It's really hard to convince the average Joe or Jane who doesn't have your own personal moral assuredness on this topic that even incrementally moving the dial in the Right direction is a good thing.

If you really want to reduce abortions, your words do more harm than good.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

but I disagree with the premise that a state of moral assuredness is somehow improper.

Why should I listen to someone who uses hedge language?

JSobielsk

When you start out the conversation with someone on the subject of abortion by throwing a bomb in their face, or asserting your moral superiority on the issue, you're not going to get many takers.

I'll just stop with this and say that I respectfully disagree, and point out that the sort of comment made by gamecock does not respectfully disagree with those that do not see the issue the same way he does, and in my view marginalizes any chance of getting others to see things his way.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

I can respectfully disagree with a lot of things, but its not much of a debate if the discussion ends after one side cannot show even a single example.

I understand the desire to point fingers at both sides and to take the middle ground. I also agree that there are some right-wing activist judges as the state level (Moore from Alabama comes to mind). However, your position at the federal level (no matter how much you agree with your position) is unsupported by any evidence at this time. Usually, people use the agree to disagree after several rounds of evidence and logic are applied.

Simply saying something doesn't make it so.

My communications on this have been not been overly broad.

I say that I am not aware of any right wing activist judges at the federal level (or at least the appellate levels).

You say that such judges exists.

Whose statement is more assertive of assuredness in the face of little evidence. My statement is hedged by the express acknowledgment that I am talking about what I know. In contrast, your statement asserts the conclusive truth that such people exist.

I am not defending GC (he is more than capable of doing that himself).

I am asking you to treat me as individual separate from GC.
In return, I will treat you separately and distinctly from others and give your the individual respect that all individuals are entitled to.

WE WON!

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

colored glasses.

ready now, hands over ears and chant la-la-la

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

inevitable.

Because conservatives must respect stare decisis, while liberals don't.

The Supreme Court has to disregard its own precedent if the precedent is wrong because NOBODY ELSE CAN DO IT.

The death penalty cases are all over the map because a bunch of men in robes decided that they didn't like the death penalty. The attempts all over the map have been to try and reconcile that opinion instead of merely overturning it in total.

A great example of how the SC must be true to Constitution in ways that sometimes requires that it disregard prior opinions.

JSobieski

The name the judge and justify why he/she is viewed as an activist is a rather silly game in my view. What I would view as activist from ether Left or a Right leaning set of rulings is probably not the same you would have.

In general, the 9th Circuit/Circus is populated by activist judges, mostly Liberal and I think there would be very little disagreement there. But beyond that, Judge X rules on Miranda to loosen, Judge Y rules to tighten, depends on what you think of Miranda as to what sort of activism is going on.

Again, I'll defer to what Chief Justice Roberts stated during his confirmation about being an honest umpire ruling on the question before them, not some other question or reshaping public policy by interjecting something not in the case before them, something the 9th is very guilty of.

Thinking back, there were many here on RS that did not think Roberts was conservative enough, something I disagreed with. I'm probably more in the camp that I've described above and really don't care to play the game of "gotyou" on who is obviously legislating from the bench from ether side and not being the honest umpire.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

game you don't like to play when the opponent gets to serve. Take ball
go home

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

game

I give you credit where credit is due, you do twist a phrase well.

The argument of a specific set of criteria for what constitutes a Liberal v a Right activist judge is one that you'd be able to use Jedi gamecock powers to argue, and that is a silly game indeed, and one that I really don't have the background to argue.

My argument is activism of ether type is bad, wholesale overturning of precedence is problematic at best. I like incrementalism.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

How long? Not Long!

Steve, activism is quite simple, unless you are like my ex-mother-in-law who used to ask me for my legal opinion on the same set of facts for two years because she didn't like the answer, which was:

She had no damn case!

Activism is ignoring the plain meaning of the constitution to reach a desired result the constitution does not allow.

It is making law.

Yes Steve, precedent/stare decisis is one of the great devices of the common law as it makes the law knowable so that one's actions can conform to and same and that the law is dependable.

This has been especially crucial in the areas of tort, contract and property law since the 1500's in England thru today in the US.

But England didn't have a Constitution. rather, they had a KING.

Our Constitution is THE CONTRACT OF ALL CONTRACTS. IT IS THE THING THAT MUST BE DEPENDABLE FOR THIS EXPERIMENT TO WORK.

Plessy was wrong. It was activist. later courts were cowards.

It is very hard to overturn an activist decision given that amendments to the const are so hard to get with super majorities.

It is the duty in the oath of each justice to UPHOLD the CONSTITUTION, not opinions of past courts.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

the policeman should avoid acting in a sense of moral assuredness. Maybe a more incremental response is called for.

He disarms your assailant, but gives him one of three credit cards. It is an incremental change.

Who else can right a wrong perpetrated by the SC.

They issue 100 decisions a year that are turn embodied and propagated in thousands of lower court decisions.

Is the only rememdy that half the population work full time on generating puplic support for constitutional amendments?

What is the remedy for bad precedent?

Most deal with actual interstate commerce, and so are constitutional. But many aren't, and I am with Justice Thomas in that I would overturn obviously wrongful decisions. I do think there would be some upheaval if some were overturned, and given that most have been in effect for 60 years can understand the stare decisis principle being applied.

But I suspect that if some were overturned, we would see lightning quick action by congress and the states, and would probably see some tradeoffs that would straigten out a lot of the mess that let the government get so large.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

who substitutes his (or her) ideology for accepted jurisprudence.

Most often in recent years that has come from the left, but it could also come from the right, I just don't see a lot of examples of the latter.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple

a more general phenomenon --right wing activists judges---is called a game, isn't any attempt to actually present evidence a mere game.

Can you even point to a single judicial opinion that you would characterize as a right wing activist opinion?

Dismissing the quest for evidence as a game is not persuasive in my view.

Evidence is not a game.
Judicial overreach is certainly not a game.

The desire to chastise both sides may bring political points in the MSM, but I am not personally aware of any right-wing activists judges in the federal judiciary at the appellate or supreme court level. None. Period.

Thus, I find the attempted triangulation (both sides have activist judges) to be most unhelpful.

If that is a game, then I must play through to the end.

Judge Roy Moore from Alabama to be a right-wing activist? If I remember correctly, he disagreed with a federal court ruling that he lost and had to be removed from office because he would not comply. That seems pretty activist to me.

determines who the activist is. Is the opinion or order consistent with the constitution? That is THE question.

The monument decorating the courthouse did not establish a religion.

case closed on activism

The guv of bama should have backed moore and forced dubya to send in fed troops to remove the monument

or not

cowards all

except for Moore

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

this sounds like your definition of an activist judge is someone who issues a ruling that you disagree with. Do you consider the remaining 8 Alabama supreme court justices as activist judges because they forced the removal of the monument and recommended an ethics hearing for Judge Moore's removal? In this case, you either have to admit that Judge Moore was an activist judge or believe that everyone else (8 Alabama judges, a federal district judge, and 3 judges of the federal appeals court - 12 judges in all - were all activist judges.

the constitution is written
we were talking about Moore's POSITION on the fed judge's order

I still am

Roy was right

the monument did not establish a religion

write a new blog on the switch you chose when you lost this argument

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple

But he still was an activist right-wing judge.

I am not personally aware of any right-wing activists judges in the federal judiciary at the appellate or supreme court level. None. Period.

The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple

He was the head justice of the Alabama supreme court - not a federal judge. I contend that he is still an obvious example of a very high-level right-wing activist judge. But you are correct - not a federal judge.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

the intellectual honesty and logic skills are lacking here

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

who not be considered liberal. He is hardly a right wing activist judge.

What does the Constitution say about Miranda?
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and others involved in founding the country and ratifying the constitution were quite fine without having policeman read the litany of Miranda rights to defendants.

To say that the constitution requires Miranda warnings is clearly contrary to their interpretation of the constitution.

There are tradeoffs in how far one goes to alleviate bad decisions. Justices can properly weigh the degree to which the ruling is wrong, length of time, etc. I probably wouldn't overturn Miranda if I was on the SC. However, to say that the original Miranda decision is correct is to support justices making up constitutional rights.

JS

You made my point with comments on Miranda just now.

You question the constitutional basis of Miranda, the unreasonable search and seizure clause, yet you're not quite ready to pull the trigger on a complete overturn. Miranda was fairly controversial when originally handed down, and cries of Judaical activism were pretty strong by the way. I'd agree that perhaps some rulings that have grown out of it lack common sense, but that's another argument when it comes to members of the legal profession.

You come out for incrementalism in Miranda, the exact opposite of many who have posted on this thread when it comes to Roe. I find that moving target of what is activism and should be overturned rather than mended interesting as there appears to me to a bit of rationalization over that very term "activism".

On the Supremos, Scalia and Thomas appear to be the only hard core originalists, which is one definition of activism, something that did not appear in the original constitution is bad. I'd guess that any number of things that make up our modern society from the Internet to the stem cell research isn't covered in the constitution, so that makes taking an originalist position rather difficult and open to that dreaded term, Living Constitution and the activism that brings.

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

and its not that something outside of the original constitution is bad, it is that if its outside the original constitution, its outside of today's constitution unless there was an amendment to the contrary.

You have failed to address the question of what remedy there is for incorrect constitutional decisions.

You have failed to address how such an incremental approach will ever fix the problems created by liberal courts who exercise no restraint in bending the constitution to their will.

In short, you are advocating bringing a knife (but no gun) to a fight where the other side is bringing automatic weapons.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

"On the Supremos, Scalia and Thomas appear to be the only hard core originalists, which is one definition of activism, something that did not appear in the original constitution is bad. I'd guess that any number of things that make up our modern society from the Internet to the stem cell research isn't covered in the constitution"

How is it activist to interpret a document based on what those who wrote the document meant? How could anyone be [i]less[/i] activist? And originalism does not mean that something that did not appear in the original Constitution is bad. It means that something that did not appear in the Constiution or in any of the Amendments... simply is not in the Constitution - which is so obvious I find it ridiculous that it even has to be argued.

The Constitution has clauses that would apply to actions using the Internet, like if the federal government used the Internet to set up a state religion or to infringe on our right to private property. Still, it is true that the Constitution does not have any clauses that are specifically about the Internet or stem cell research. So what? There is nothing wrong with parts of modern society not being specifically covered in the Constitution. The Internet will still be subject to modern laws and timeless Constitutional rights like freedom of speech.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Yikes...baker's rights are Right Wing...who'd a thunk!

______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

on some significant war powers issues and won most all. He has chickened out on some and fashioned compromises. He violated his oath when he signed mccain-feingold.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

he did challenge on some war issues. I would have like to see a challenge on trade policy. The Congress grants trade powers to the president (which he has anyway) then passes laws to try and constrain him.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

suveilling domestic calls WITHIN the US since 911 as well as those that have only one line within. no doubt

I well remeber AGAG's trstimony that parsed words that made this clear.

I crowed

and we haven't had another 911

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

of this problem in Slouching and Tempting

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

The purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better.
Dr. Theodore Dalrymple