NEWS: Americans Love Activist Judges!

POLITICS: Americans Love Activist Judges!

"Activist judge" has been a rallying cry for the Republican party for over a decade. Whenever a judge makes a ruling unfavorable to the party's interests the conservative pundits rush to the Sunday morning talk shows, bemoaning the power grab by the judiciary leaving them impotent (despite controlling all three branches of the federal government - at least for now.) Of course, in extra-special cases like those determining whether votes should be counted for the American presidency, complaints of judicial activism were nowhere to be found from the right when a controversial decision put their man in power.



What's not as clear from the constant harping on judges gone wild in their attempts to rewrite the constitution is whether that is an effective political tactic for converting moderates to conservative philosophies, or whether it's just a useful way to rally the base to get out and vote. Considering the frequency with which it is mentioned one would have to conclude that those on the right think it's an effective way to stay in power. Which makes it all the more surprising when a recent poll shows that the vast majority of Americans actually prefer a more independent judiciary, unanswerable to the whims of politicians.

Lifetime appointments for federal judges are an integral part of how Article III of the US Constitution has been interpreted, which reads that "during good behavior" judges will retain their appointments unless impeached. Good behavior has been widely interpreted to mean a de facto lifetime appointment for federal judges, but there are those who disagree, claiming that the phrase warrants judicial oversight that would allow for judges to be removed from office without impeachment, and Congress has recently been considering the creation of an Inspector's office for just this type of action.



The Americans questioned in the cited poll seemed to understand a concept that the legislators and commentators who advocate increasing scrutiny and accountability for judges do not. That is, the benefits of an independent federal judiciary far outweigh the occasional disagreeable decision, regardless of which side of the political aisle one stands on. It is the judiciary that has consistently been at the forefront of the country's push towards increased freedom, including rights to free speech and a free press, gun ownership and religious practices, not to mention important items like desegregation and equality at the voting booths. The reason the courts were the place where these fundamental liberties that so many take for granted today could gain momentum is because judges were not answerable to the general public when they made their decisions. A sizeable portion of the Congress, not to mention everyday citizens, would not have wanted to be responsible for the end of segregation that the Supreme Court made possible. But the court, wisely recognizing the tyranny of the majority in this case, made it possible, and now no one can conceive of returning to a time like that.



Hopefully Conress will get a whiff of this poll and stop with their meddling in the affairs of the third branch of government.

There is no necessary contradiction between supporting judicial independence and deploring "judicial activism" (where this is defined as making any ruling, for any reason, that one doesn't like). That is, it is at least coherent to believe that judges should have the power to install a Republican president, but that no one who would ever, for any reason, rule in favour of gay people on some issue of concern to them should be a judge in the first place.

There was an excellent piece in Slate the other day on the "dysfunctional" relationship between Congress and the courts: http://www.slate.com/id/2151048/

As Colbert said, "the last 30 percent is usually backwash."

And I think congress is going to be occupied by other matters soon enough. Do I dare to impeach? Yes. He who dares wins.

I really detest politicians and their constant rewriting of the Constitution to fit the needs of their lobbyists and themselves. It's always been my understanding that judges are to interpret the laws - not make them. Congress makes shitty laws and then bitches at the judges when they don't go the way they expected. Boo fucking hoo. Politicians are shitbags who should only be paid if they balance the budget for their territory/district. Period. If they fail to balance their budget, they should be paid the local minimum wage and lose pension eligibility for that term. I don't believe that we've ever had a congress that is truly working for the people and not the fucking lobbyists in any of our lifetimes.

As far as Bush is concerned - if you take away the political party affiliation (and we always should when looking at people because Republican vs. Democrat is like Massengil vs. Summer's Eve. Both are douches but insist that the other is a bigger douche), you have a man who is clearly an idiot and "probably" didn't deserve to be president. Even though most citizens assume he's worthy of impeachment, no member of Congress has so much as brought forth a bill to counteract what Bush supposedly did - which is bring our troops to Iraq. That was actually a vote by Congress and Congress alone. If your local or state rep is suggesting that he/she was "duped" regarding the situation in Iraq - write letters to your reps and ask them why nobody has asked for impeachment hearings and why the vote to send the troops wasn't overturned. In reality, I don't believe we can trust any politicians as they appear to be working in their own self-interest instead of the public's.

Rember: our outdated two-party system is why we had to choose between dipshit Bush and fucktard Kerry during the last election. Neither were decent candidates for presidency but thanks to our system - they were our only choices. Yay!

You have made this inaccurate statement before and I have tried to disabuse you of it, but you persist.

Congress passed
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq in October of 2002. It says among other things that

That is that the President is authorized to take action against those who attacked us on 09/11/2001.

This language is pursuant to the Bush administration's false allegations that Iraq was so involved.

However, the main point of the resolution is this language:

Which should make two things abundantly clear. One is that the President, not Congress took the steps necessary to bring troops to Iraq. The second is that he did this by falsely asserting - to meet the requirements of the resolution - that Iraq represented a threat to the national security of the United States.

While I agree that Congress abdicated its responsibilty to ask questions and serve as the people's forum for discussing threats to national security, your assertion that Congress bears sole responsibilty for the war is patently false. More to the point, your implication that Congress bears any responsibility for the poor planning, poor execution, lack of stategy and basic imcompentence in pursuing the war is ludicrous.

So please enlighten us as to how you know this yet nobody in Congress (Republican or Democrat) has acted upon it?

Acted on what? Impeachment? Stopping the war? Color me confused.

Color you confused? Uh, I responded directly to your statement. If you're confused by that, then maybe your statement should have been more specific.

Nick, the president didn't launch our troops...Congress did. Please look up the War Powers Act which would prohibit any president from launching troops unless war is declared. And that would only be in effect for 90 days. Again, I'm not in any fucking way defending Bush - I think he's a douchebag...but let's at least be accurate in the fingerpointing and with tossing the Impeachment word around.

Clinton was Impeached not for a good reason - but on a technicality (Go ahead, Republicans..flame me for that comment) which in my opinion, shouldn't have even been a fucking issue in the first place. I personally don't give a shit who the president is boning or not boning. I also don't think it's any of the public's business.

I am confused because your question made no fucking sense.

As to the war powers act, you really should read the resolution I provided the link to - it says

In any case your understanding of this process is flawed. Congress - according the the Constitution - must declare war. But that has gone by the by since T Roosevelt. No war the US has been in since WWII has been based on a declaration of congress. The War Powers Act was passed in 1972 because Nixon bombed Cambodia without even informing Congress

However, even within the context of the Constitution all Congress can do is "authorize" (via declaration or other vehicle), it is up to the Commander in Chief to conduct any action.

We should probably take this discussion elsewhere as we are hijacking this thread - my point was simply that your assertion that Congress had no standing to impeach the President because it was they who started the war is just plan wrong, and reveals a naivety about how our government works that is a little frightening.

Again, this is a collossal, monumental oversimplification. If you are suggesting that Congress and Congress alone bears responsibility for the Iraq War, you are blindly ignoring 90% of the big picture and displaying a total and complete ignorance of the powers of the executive.

Moreover, the War Powers Resolution is of debatable Constitutionality, and no administration has ever taken the position that it is in any way binding. So again, TheGringo misunderstands what is going on here.

Judicial Activism is a myth. There is no such thing. It never happened. Not once.

Well, except for when the Supreme Court appointed the President that is.

Well, it appears that the two of you are privy to information that no Republican or Democratic Congressperson is aware of or acting on. Perhaps one or both of you should enlighten your local, state, and federal leaders.

I have no idea about the downside to this would be, but I'd be interested to see how the appointments would go if 1 candidate fo each remaining Justice was presented BY each Justice to the Senate for voting. At least the Justices have a hell of a lot more insight to what's required for the position than ANY fucking president and should have no say so in the process. Just as it's stupid that we allow any president to have military power when they have limited military background.

Dude you are really starting to scare me.

So you're willing to let people like Clarence Thomas and Tony Scalia pick the President (again)? Not the dumbest idea I've ever heard, but its definitely in the top 10, probably in the top 5.

Pick the president? No, I was referring to Supreme Court Appointees. Which is why I said I think it's stupid that the president appoints them.

My bad for misreading your post. I would still say that having Thomas and Scalia pick new Justices is a horrible idea. Luckily that won't be happening anytime soon.

Actually, I should have been more specific in the original post and more clearly stated that it was for Supreme Court Justice Appointees and nothing else.

But anyway, it was a "spur of the moment" idea/post and certainly not one I would push any further than this thread. I just don't like the idea of any president (who has almost no court experience other than avoiding charges) selecting a new appointee.

No, we are privvy to the same fucking information that everyone who's taken a civics or political science class has. It is you who are sorely misinformed. Seriously.

Dude, take a Thorazine patch and chill. You're way too uptight. I was asking why it is you and Nick have the whole impeachment process figured out for Bush yet no Republican, Democrat, or Independent congressperson has.

Or is it possible that the politicans and/or political party you would like to believe in aren't honest and working in the public's best interest?

I think what Subrosa and Nick have been making pains to express, is that little to nothing you've said re the president's role as commander in chief, and Congress' war-declaring powers, is accurate.

And Ringer, what I've been questioning is, how come NOTHING has been done by ANYONE in Congress about it? Check Senate.gov for floor activity. Nada. Nothing. Zip. In fact, the only recent floor activity regarding our troops in Iraq was a bill to require more frequent reports on our efforts and "progress" - if you can call it that.

If the people/citizens are so correct in their assertions and accusations yet nobody in Congress is doing anything about it then either the people are wrong or the politicans they blindly follow and trust are more corrupt than they'd like to believe.

For a number of reasons, but most of all because it would be politically inexpedient.

Regardless, lack of action on impeachment proceedings does not, in any miniscule way, denote that Congress and Congress alone is responsible for the war in Iraq. I'm not even sure how anyone could come to that conclusion in the first place.

You are aware of the fact that any impeachment proceeding must begin in the House Judiciary Committee? Given that the current Chair of the Committee is James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), it should suprise no one that the Judiciary Committee has declined to even consider the matter. Our dear leader could eat a live baby on the lawn of the White House with cameras rolling and Sensenbrenner still wouldn't consider impeachment.