Activist Judges, what makes them so?

[Toots]

To whom does the Constitution give authority to write Law? It is Congress not the Judiciary right? It also is not the Executive. Bush* has no more right or authority to write Law then do Activist Judges. When Bush* arbitrarily overrides a Law he is in effect rewriting Law. He is saying here is a change that needs to be made. He does not have that authority and neither does the Judiciary. Usually what the judge says is that he/she deems the Law unconstitutional and needs to be rewritten or thrown out but does not do the rewriting them self. Bush* on the other hand takes it upon himself to rewrite Law in the most Unconstitutional manner. Take for instance the Presidential Papers Act. That was an Act of Congress establishing Congressional Law. Bush* in a Unitary Executive Decree rewrote that Law. IMO his first Impeachable Act. Which renowned Democrat stood up and said "hey you can't do that"? Not one that I can recall. Why? Why is Bush* being allowed to Write Law when the Constitution clearly says only Congress can do that? We have an "Activist pResident" IMO.

[ashling]

1. Soy milk n/t

[Toots]

2. Question or Answer

:shrug:

[ashling]

12. Answer

I guess I should have used the sarcasm thingee.
reference to Worldnut Daily piece on soy causing gayness, et al.

[Mikey929]

3. SCOTUS

The SCOTUS does rewrite law in violation of the Constitution. Witness the abominable eminent domain decision. The Court took the term public use and converted it to public purpose. They claim to merely interpret the language, but they essentially rewrote it. That is the kind of activism I cannot stand. Words have meaning.

And I agree Bush has overreached in his claims of presidential power. Congress has to assert its authority, as it is mandated to do.

[TechBear_Seattle]

4. You have swallowed the neo-con lies hook, line and sinker

Judges do not "write law": that is part of the Big Lie that neo-conservatives have been peddling for years.

Article VI, para. 2 of the United States Constitution states: This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Thus, the Constitution is the final arbiter of what is and what is not legal, and all judges must abide by the Constitution. By the legal traditions of common law which we inherited from the British, judges do not merely decide cases, they also serve as arbiters of what is and what is not legal. In light of these two mandates, US judges have the duty to decide whether a given law is valid with regards to the Constitution; If it is not, they are required to strike it down. Also, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, judges have a duty to enforce that law even to the extent of forcing Congress to take action. State judges have the same duties with regards to their state constitutions.

Your specific issue, the Presidential Papers Act, seems to be a conflict between the Legislative and Executive branches. Where is the matter of "activist judges" in that?

Oh, and the phrase itself, "activist judge", is by definition any judge who fulfills the duties of enforcing the Constitution in a way that demonstrates how much contempt neo-cons have for the Constitution.

[NewJeffCT]

6. No, the OP is not

They said that the judiciary can declare a law unconstitutional, but do not actually re-write the law. They said that Bush, with his signing statements, is - in effect - rewriting laws.

That said, any judge that rules against a Republic is considered an "activist" judge - even if it's Tony Scalia or Clarence Thomas.

[Davis_X_Machina]

8. Anybody who doesn't put air quotes...

...around 'activist judges' is talking out of his ass.

The phrase has no meaning, because its meaning is always changing, or never changing, in the sense that it's the jurisprudential version of 'bad referee' -- i.e. one who calls things against my team.

[KharmaTrain]

5. This Jury Is Out...

If you want an answer to the misnomer of "Activist Judges", just watch one in action in a case. They're only "activist" when the laws are either vague or so brazenly violated they need to be redefined. Short of a SCOTUS justice, every judge also knows any ruling they make can be overturned and thus "renegade" judges are quickly reined in (Roy Moore, anyone???).

I agree in rewriting laws and using signing statements to subert the courts and congress is impeachable...and that should be exposed and dealt with...but unfortunately it's not going to be as cut and dried as many here wish/hope it can be.

Booooshie's gambit with tue Unitary Executive worked perfectly when he had a weak lap-dog Congress. There was no oversight and he was able to ramrod what he wanted when he wanted to. The strategy could even work with control of just one branch as he could create a gridlock between the House and Senate and play one end against the other. The game changed when Webb won and the Senate flipped. Now, Booshie is gonna play out the clock and dare the Democrats to challenge and investigate him...and he'll stonewall and end-run as much as he can. The game will eventually end up in the courts...and the outcome is uncertain.

I imagine that within the next month, we'll run into our first "executive privilidge" request in trying to stonewall an investigation and the court game will be on. Then we'll find out who the real "activist" judges are.

[Bandit]

9. The OP seemed to be about real Executive decrees and not signing statements

The Presidential Papers Act is/was a real Congressional Law. Written and passed by Congress and signed into Law by the President. Bush* rewrote that law by Decree. He did not use a signing statement..

[hedgehog]

7. Years ago, activist judge was code for a judge attempting to

enforce civil rights law and/or get prayer out of public schools. Right or wrong, many saw busing as the way to enforce civil rights law and it became an absolute hot button for many. Today activist judge is anyone who enforces laws that interfere with "the way things were back in the good old days", whatever that means.

[Strawman]

10. "Judicial Activism" is a crock

The single greatest determinant for how any judge will vote on the SCOTUS is ideology. Conservative or liberal. There's even some evidence to suggest that conservative judges are actually less ideologically neutral.

[High Plains]

11. An "activist judge" is one whose rulings I don't like

A term of sheer political demogoguery is all.