Activists judges and the Supremes

Let's call the whole thing off.

Published on November 1, 2004 By InfoGeek In Politics

I have been hearing a lot about activist judges and how they are an abomination on the judicial landscape.

Now, it is my understanding that it is the responsibility of the judges, especially in the higher courts to consider a certain law and how that law resonates with the state’s constitution. It also seems that certain state courts have decided that a certain state’s constitution allows certain events to take place. Certain people have labeled these judges “activist”

It is also my understanding that this responsibility of “resonation” belongs ultimately to the Supreme Court.

Now, in order to remove the specter of activism completely from the judicial process, should we eliminate all those courts above the Appeal level and turn over such decisions to the legislative branch and the “will of the people”?

Shouldn’t we overturn Brown v. Board, if that is what the majority of real Americans want?

IG

Comments

Grim Xiozan

on Nov 01, 2004

Shouldn’t we overturn Brown v. Board, if that is what the majority of real Americans want?

Or Roe v. Wade?

Seriously there is more to being a judge and activist judges are not what I would consider a solution to the problem, the best judge would be to have a Philosophical, Lawful, and non-Activist (because Activists tend to be partisan than not, i.e. the Gay Marriage for and against judges), plus one who does not associate with either party judge.

Well it could happen, as McDonald commercials say.

Judgmental Plinko!!

Draginol

on Nov 01, 2004

Most Americans believed in integration in the 1950s.

Secondly, Brown vs. Board of Education was good constitutional law given that there were amendments that dealt with the issue pretty clearly.

Roe vs. Wade on the other hand is an abomination. And as a pro-choice person, i find it disgusting to compare civil rights to convenient access to aborting a human fetus.

Grim Xiozan

on Nov 01, 2004

Roe vs. Wade on the other hand is an abomination. And as a pro-choice person, i find it disgusting to compare civil rights to convenient access to aborting a human fetus.

IG's point was if people voted on the issue would it be right to overturn it? If Brown v. Board comes up in a vote you can bet the other will too, that is why I mentioned it. Constitutional judges is what are needed in a Supreme Court, one's who interpret the law not change it.

Anyways I believe in keeping the law as is with Roe v. Wade, BUT condemn state-funded and state-mandated abortions it is the woman's choice not the state, Government should be kept out of the issue. Don't you think it is harsh to force someone who believes that abortion is murder to pay for another's abortion? I think by just keeping it legal and keeping the Government out it solves the issue for both sides IMO.

Constitutional Plinko!!

kingbee

on Nov 01, 2004

Most Americans believed in integration in the 1950s

some americans believed that integration was 'fair'--in principle--in the 1950s. very few were willing to do anything about it and in many cases real estate deeds included a covenant restricting transfer of property to non-white buyers, thus preventing integration of public schools. according to the late supreme court chief justice earl warren, he was invited to a dinner at the whitehouse while the court was considering brown vs bd. eisenhower took him aside at one point, gestured to the other two male guests and whispered something to the effect of these guys have daughters who will be forced to go to school with negros if the decision goes the wrong way.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!