# judicial activism?



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Where do conservatives get the idea that the Supreme Court is too liberal and prone to judicial activism? Since 7 of the 9 current justices on the court were appointed by Reagan, Bush I, and Ford, and only 2 appointed by Clinton, I would say to conservatives, look to your own party first and what your leaders picked for the court before claiming the court is liberal. The supposedly activist 9th Circuit court of appeals were also predominately appointed by republican administrations. I don't understand the conservative mind set about judicial activism and do not tell me that the liberals are to blame for the activist courts, the conservatives who appointed them are responsible.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Ninety-four of the 162 active judges now on U.S. appeals courts were chosen by Republican presidents. On 10 of the 13 circuit courts, Republican appointees have a clear majority. And, since 1976, at least seven of the nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court have been filled by Republican appointees.

Even if President Bush wins approval for the dozen disputed nominees who have been blocked by Senate Democrats, only one circuit would shift its ideological balance: The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, now evenly divided, would become 10-6 Republican. That would give Republicans a majority on 11 of the 13 circuits versus the current 10 of 13.

Although it remains a staple of conservative rhetoric that the courts are "out of control" and driven by "liberal activists," the GOP's control of the White House for 24 of the past 36 years has given Republicans - if not conservatives - a firm grip on the federal judiciary.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

> the GOP's control of the White House for 24 of the past 36 years has given Republicans - if not conservatives - a firm grip on the federal judiciary.


And I give thanks to God every day


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't know about you Zogman, but that is scary. If you think about it what indsport is telling us is that it could have been much worse. Whew, can you imagine that.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I agree with plainsman, it is very scary. To have 24 of 36 years in power, and appointing the majority of judges at all levels of the federal court system, while hearing from conservatives, bush, cheney, frist, and the evangelical christian right complain about judicial activism while ignoring history and facts is reprehensible. Evidently, the conservative right is unhappy with just a majority but wants outright total control of the judiciary in this country. Furthermore, it is evident from all the whining that the conservatives don't even recognize their own anymore. Even Rehnquist and Scalia have commented most recently that the conservative right has gone overboard.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

You got to be far right to gain the middle ground!!!!!!!!!
Ever heard of Boxer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Gore, Dashele, and the list goes on and on and on that's what scary to me.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It may be correct that they were appointed by conservatives, but they are not conservative. As a matter of fact activism has no place on the supreme court. If they are activists they are violating the intent of the founding fathers and the constitution. Law is to come from the congress signed by the president. The supreme court is to interpret the laws and constitution nothing more nothing less.

Some of these judges were conservative when appointed, but I don't know what Washington does to people because they are sure screwed up now.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

zogman said:


> You got to be far right to gain the middle ground!!!!!!!!!
> Ever heard of Boxer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Gore, Dashele, and the list goes on and on and on that's what scary to me.


Oh you must be kidding me. Bush is a radical conservative, and every stinking person near him has to drink the kool aid to even be at the party.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Some of these judges were conservative when appointed, but I don't know what Washington does to people because they are sure screwed up now.


I think very few were actually true conservative nominees. Most were what was hopefully thought by the Presidents of the time to be moderate so they would be approved by the Democrat control congress. The true conservative nominees never even got a hearing in committee, let alone a vote on the floor. So it was take the best you can get and put them through. That's what has the Democrats fighting so hard now, with the Senate, Republican controlled now and the President a Republican, the Democrats know true conservatives will be put into the pot.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

If you read the reports at the time of the nominations of many of the current judges, they were considered conservative by the conservatives. The other posts on this topic just shows to me that the current state of "conservative" in this country is far to the right of what republicans used to be 20 years ago. In my own family, cousins who used to vote republican and were local party leaders 30 and 40 years ago are now voting independent and cannot stand the extremist views of the current republican party.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> The other posts on this topic just shows to me that the current state of "conservative" in this country is far to the right of what republicans used to be 20 years ago.


In my opinion I think you have severely misread the tea leaves on this one. Today's conservative party is almost a mirror image of the Democratic party of the Kennedy era. Today's Democrats are more socialist than they want to admit and seem to look towards the Canadian government as a model. If you don't believe this just take a look at some of the leading Republican leaders in the last 20 years that were once registered Democrats.
Even people like Zell Miller that won't change his party affiliation can't stand what his party has become. Those on the extreme right have always been there as well as those on the extreme left. It's the 90% in between that have done the shifting.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Gohon, I grant you your viewpoint, but from my viewpoint, today's conservative party's agenda and tactics is just to the right of John Burch and the KKK, and fast approaching nazism and totalitarian stalinism, and has no resemblance whatsoever to the Democratic party of the past that I am familiar with in 40 years of politics in multiple midwest states and the west coast. Also in my viewpoint, the Democratic Party has moved so far towards the right, they now look like Republicans of 35 years ago.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Well, one thing is for certain ............ our view points are miles apart. To bad your's is wrong.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I am in absolute shock that Gohon & crew posess the ability to ignore each and every one of your facts indsport, then spout off some severely mislead opinions about us being socialist and look at themselves in the mirror. I do wonder if these people will look back on today in their old age and see just how radical they were.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

MT wrote:


> I do wonder if these people will look back on today in their old age and see just how radical they were.


That's prophetic MT. I am already old, but your not. What do you think might happen????? hehe


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

I thought about it overnight and figured out the problem. Gohon (oklahoma) has a chance between slim and none of actually meeting a fire breathing left of Paul Wellstone liberal although he may have been lucky enough to do so. So I digress to a personal story about myself and family to illustrate my point I was trying to make to Gohon. In the mid 1960's, in Minnesota where we lived, we were moderate democrats, local party committee etc. etc. Then we moved to Washington state. family members visited both republican and democratic party committee meetings. Guess what, what was moderate to liberal Democratic views on the issues in Minnesota at the time, was considered wildly right by democrats and somewhat moderate republican in Washington state. We, coming from the midwest, realized we had not seen a true left liberal all the time we lived in Minnesota. The outcome was rather interesting, most of our family became independent voters and my sister ended up as republican party chairman of the local and region using the identical viewpoint she espoused as a democrat in Minnesota.

As to MT, sorry son, coming from the flower power generation myself, most of the idealism of youth wears away as you age and most if not all of your peers will drift right as they age. The most basic tenet of politics I know is: When young, you have nothing, you know nothing and you want to know why things are not better, and why I haven't heard from God and you want support in your life. as one ages, they accumulate wealth, power and prejudices and seem to fall into a rut of four plaints: I got mine, don't take it away. I got mine, why won't you work to get yours. I never got mine, there must be someone to blame and the government/women/foreigners/ is easiest to blame, and Yikes, I'm old, better start talking to God now.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Insport that last part is pretty good and true to great extent :beer: .
I would like to point out that while your numbers of supposed conservatives that are appointed to the judiciary may well be correct those numbers don't tell the real story.
It only takes a few key decisions by judges that want to legislate from the bench ( from either side of the political fence) to make laws that would never fly if tried by the legislature. We all ( conservative and liberals) should demand that judges read the constitution as written and rule accordingly because it protects all of us from the excesses of government, not interpret it as a "living document" which is a euphamism for saying the founders really didn't mean what they wrote. It is the legislatures job to make laws, not the judges!!! This is to be done with our approval at the ballot box we are a representative republic not a democracy and definitely not a country where unaccountable judges should have any hand in formation of laws.

We have a supreme court that is looking at international law when making decisions and that doesn't bode well for our constitution.

IF the country doesn't agree with the constitution there is a process for changing it and *its not some judge*. We are a country of laws as written by the founders and we need to protect that beyond all else because the liberal vs conservative ideology drifts back and forth over time as Gohon correctly stated. The repubs of today are the Dems of the Kennedy era in many areas of policy. If we stray away from our constitution we will be lost, and we are straying....

There may be a britght side to this though...http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedc ... /44781.htm

:beer:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

What I find most fascinating about the whole judiciary and the appointment process, is how the political viewpoints of judges (before appointment) do not necessarily carry over once they put on the robes. The most interesting example was Warren Burger. When nominated , he was a fire breathing conservative and staunch supporter of Reagan when Reagan was govenor. After his appointment to chief justice, he became one of the most outspoken liberal justices on social issues. So in the long run, it turns out that neither political party is sure that their appointee will match their political viewpoint. 
What I find disgusting about both political parties is their self imposed litmus tests for conservative versus liberal viewpoints. 
Secondarily, both parties pay some attention as to whether their appointee is a strict constructionist or not.

As to the whole uproar over "judicial activism", I cannot come down on the side of supporting strict constructionist. Think of Plessy versus Ferguson (supreme court interpreted the law to allow slavery) versus the overturn of the same case years later by another court. If the courts are not allowed to evolve the law over time, slavery would still exist in this country. There is no amendment to repeal slavery in the constitution. It was the courts and only the courts that ruled one way and then another.
The judiciary interprets the laws passed by the legislature as to whether they are constitutional and if you read the opinions, not just the decision, the court in almost all cases point out to the legislature where the law conflicts with the constitution and in many cases how to change the law to make it constitutional. That is overlooked by the vast majority of the whiners about judicial activism.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I thought about it overnight and figured out the problem. Gohon (oklahoma) has a chance between slim and none of actually meeting a fire breathing left of Paul Wellstone liberal although he may have been lucky enough to do so.


Welllllllll ................... sounds like a good theory but that's not how it worked. I was born in this state but left at age 16. The last 10 years of military service (out of 26 years) was spent in the San Francisco Bay area. Then retired I stayed in that area another 12 years. This is the home area of Barbara Boxer and the Berkley nazi's. So, you see I have been up close and personal with the radical left. I moved back to Oklahoma again in 2000 and I'm still going through the disinfecting process. Folks tell me around here I'll need another 5 years of therapy before I'm considered safe to go down town alone.


----------



## mr.trooper (Aug 3, 2004)

i think alot of you are still a little confused.

A Republican does not a conservative make.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

To add to my thread, I see the judiciary committee yesterday sent two nominees to the floor for a vote, one of which was Priscilla Owen. here is what the current attorney general said about Ms. Owen and some of her written opinions:

Alberto R. Gonzales, the attorney general, who was a member of the court at the time, said the views of the dissenters were far beyond what the Legislature had enacted and amounted to "an unconscionable act of judicial activism." A review of the court opinions shows that other judges also asserted that Justice Owen and her fellow dissenters were putting their own views ahead of the law.

So, the republicans, who are quoted as being against judicial activism, have nominated and passed in the committee, a nominee who, in the opinion of her colleagues, the current attorney general, and others, is a judicial activist.

Could someone from the right explain this to me?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Could someone from the right explain this to me?


Maybe because Gonzales and Owens once worked together and they both had bitterness towards each other. Maybe Gonzales saw a chance to even the score. Maybe since Gonzales doesn't name the other judges there is really just himself. Seems the phrase "Justice Owen and her fellow dissenters" sounds like Gonzales had a problem with an entire court should raise a red flag on Gonzales statements. Just some maybes to think about...........


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Could someone from the right explain this to me?


I wish I could. I also would like to know. It makes me think that I wouldn't like one of them.

I still would like to see these people get up for a vote. It is petty to block them even having a chance. Obstructionists just like our old buddy from South Dakota.


----------

