How many times have we heard Republicans whine about "activist liberal judges" who "legislate from the bench"? The implication is of course that liberal judges overturn laws passed by Congress in order to push their own left wing ideologies.
That is one of the many lies that Republicans endlessly blabber on about in order to lead people to believe that they respect the democratic process more than Democrats do. The truth is that Republicans have no choice but to lie about this and every other major issue of interest to the American people. How else could a Party whose every act favors wealthy corporations and individuals at the expense of the vast majority of American citizens hope to have a chance of surviving in a democracy?
John McCain does his share to push the myth of the "activist liberal judge" who "legislates from the bench", just as he pushes virtually every other Republican sponsored myth. This is what he has to say about the issue of "activist liberal judges" on his website:
John McCain believes that one of the greatest threats to our liberty and the Constitutional framework that safeguards our freedoms are willful judges who usurp the role of the people and their representatives and legislate from the bench. As President, John McCain will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.... That is why he strongly supported John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court and that is why he would seek men and women like them as his judicial appointees.
So, let's take a look at what the evidence says about these "activist liberal judges".
An analysis of activist U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
One of the most "activist" decisions that a judge can make is to strike down a law passed by Congress. Until 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an average of one Congressional statute every two years.
From 1994 through 2005 the composition of the USSC did not change. An analysis of USSC votes by Paul Gewirtz and Chad Golder, from 1994 to 2005, a period during which the composition of the Court did not change, revealed 64 decisions involving the striking down or upholding of Congressional provisions. So what did that analysis have to say "liberal activist judges"?
Two of the USSC judges on the court during this period of time (Ginsburg and Breyer) were appointed by a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) and are considered moderately liberal. Then there are another two who were appointed by Republican presidents, but who are considered moderate (Souter and Stevens). The other five were appointed by Republican presidents and are considered conservatives (Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, Kennedy, and O'Connor). Here is the percent of votes in 64 USSC decisions on Congressional statutes or provisions of statutes enacted by Congress, from 1994-2005, in favor of striking down those provisions or statutes:
So much for "liberal activist judges". Senator Dianne Feinstein put this issue in perspective in a 2005 speech:
The Rehnquist Court has continued this restrictive, some might say "activist," position. Its decisions have wholly or partially invalidated more than three dozen federal statutes in the past decade... including: the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act, which seeks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act, both of which seek to protect citizens from discrimination.
Some specific ways in which conservative USSC justices legislate from the bench
Environmental protection Environmental legislation is enacted by Congress in order to help protect our environment from irresponsible corporate actions. Many radical conservative judges don't believe that Congress has the Constitutional right to enact environmental legislation (or other legislation that establishes administrative agencies to enforce the will of Congress.) This is based on the absurd notion that, although our Constitution gives Congress the authority to enact legislation, it doesn't give them the authority to delegate that authority. People for the American Way describes the antipathy of two of our most conservative USSC justices to environmental legislation:
Justices Scalia and Thomas have already used their positions as part of narrow majorities on the Court to do very significant damage to federal, state and local efforts to protect the environment. They have also helped lead majority opinions that have undermined the ability of citizen groups to bring lawsuits in their efforts to enforce environmental protections.
Affirmative action Congress and state legislatures enact affirmative action legislation to help equalize opportunities for minority groups who are often discriminated against. People for the American Way describes how Thomas and Scalia have reacted to these efforts:
Since his earliest days on the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia has signaled his hostility to affirmative action. In a 1987 case dealing with affirmative action for women, Justice Scalia dissented from a decision upholding the validity of affirmative action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964...Justice Scalia stated that he would never allow affirmative action under any circumstances....
Dale Tavris is a physician-epidemiologist who has practiced epidemiology in departments of public health and taught epidemiology, preventive medicine and public health to medical students. He has published several scientific articles in medical and public health journals, and a book, "Philosophy in Epidemiology and Public Health". He currently works for the FDA, doing epidemiologic research on medical devices.
He works as a volunteer for the Election Defense Alliance, where he analyzes election data for signs of election fraud.
You ought to know by now Mr. Riggs that conservative Republicans don't abide by laws. They make up the rules as they go merrily along. Mac won't EVEN get a reprimand, moreover, a scolding. In fact, the MSM will just ignore it, and no one will know but us "activist Liberals" that Hillary so despises.
I try to keep a close watch on the Supreme Court decisions, and the latest one basically discriminates against age, disability, race, etc. under the employment scenario. The ruling on the "Partial Birth abortion" hearing really discriminates against women. A law Against women is singling out females and that abortion law did just that...Ginsburg's dissent explained it so well. Btw, any abortion after "12 weeks" gestation is considered a "Partial Birth" now. The wording was quite unique and most have no idea how early abortions were affected by the ruling.
If you think these conservative Judges don't legislate THEIR religious beliefs from the bench, think again. They absolutely do! From a person listening to Alito's and Robert's confirmation such as I, I certainly can report to you that they swore to uphold the Rule of Law and have done the opposite.
Thomas? How in the hell can he even be a impartial Justice, moreover, a Judge, the scoundrel. Even segments of his book show his bias and closed minded aproach. I can't believe he didn't get kicked off the bench when the Anita Hill ordeal broke. What a Perv!
by
shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 273 comments)
on Tuesday, April 22, 2008 at 5:44:36 PM
