« Sources | Main | Hang The Bastard, He's A Foreigner »

Monday, March 14, 2005

Judicial Activist???

Those damned judicial activists are trying to destroy "traditional American values" again. In San Fransisco today, California Superior Court justice Richard Kramer ruled that there didn't appear to be any "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples.

"Rational" conservative critics are already debating the merits of the judges case:

"This is a crazy ruling by an arrogant San Francisco judge who apparently hates marriage and the voters. Kramer has trashed the people's vote to keep marriage for a man and a woman and violated his oath to uphold the law instead of making new laws out of his own head. This is the worst type of judge. This case will be immediately appealed."

"As the majority of the members of the Massachusetts Supreme Court went, so went a loony leftist judge in...San Francisco, California."

"For the second time in the last month, an aberrant judge has launched assault on the bedrock of our society." Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

Of course, what those same critics fail to mention is that Judge Kramer is both a Catholic and a Republican. They also fail to mention that this is the same judge Kramer that was lauded by conservatives when he granted full party status to Campaign for California Families. According to Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel who represented CCF:

"We are pleased that Judge Kramer granted full party status to Campaign for California Families to defend California's marriage laws. Judge Kramer clearly recognizes the benefit of hearing all sides of the marriage debate, not just those arguments advanced by the same-sex couples and the Attorney General's office."

This is also the same Judge Kramer that in January :

...refused to remove statements on reparative therapy from a lawsuit that challenges California law on the definition of marriage as a one-man, one-woman union. The judge has also refused to allow the city of San Francisco to add any statements to the lawsuit that are designed to refute the statements made by such experts as Dr. Jeffrey Satinover and Dr. George Rekers, both NARTH members.

Does that sound  like the workings of a crazed activist judge to you. Is that what you would call a judge that let all the parties speak, tired to keep the case to legal points and  made his  decision based after hearing all the arguments? No that sounds like what we elect our justices to do.

Ladies and Gentleman, this doesn't smack of judicial activism, it smacks of the conservative attack squad turning on one of their own when he doesn't tow the party line. The speed and severity of their attacks should come as no surprise to anyone who pays attention to their methods. They don't want free thinkers, only people who follow the leader in jack boot unison.

Their message is clear do as we say or suffer our wrath!

It's time to fight back and not accept this bullying and vindictive name calling without challenge. It's time to take the fight to those who want to discard facts and reason and substitute irrational diatribes in their place. It's time to look these blowhards in the eye and say Bring it On.

Oh yeah baby Bring it On. I dare you.

(cross posted at www.crankyliberal.com)

Posted by Cranky Liberal at 11:33 PM in Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834584be369e200d834584fe469e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judicial Activist???:

» Judicial Activist???? from The Cranky Liberal Pages
Those damned judicial activists are trying to destroy "traditional American values" again. In San Fransisco today, California Superior Court justice Richard Kramer ruled that there didn't appear to be any "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to g... [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 14, 2005 11:35:01 PM

» Activist Judge or Doing What He's Paid To Do? from the united american party
Hey do you think we can get this guy to look at the ten commandments thingy as well! [Read More]

Tracked on Mar 15, 2005 2:13:47 AM

Comments

judicial activism= making a decisions based not on law, but on ANY other premise (political, social welfare, whim, flipping a coin).

In other words, you can very much indeed be practicing judicial activism and going against your parties platform.

Any time a judge strikes a law, written by Constitutionally-elected representives of the State, because it had "no rational purpose" is CLEARLY activism.

Think about, if it had not rational purpose, a legislature would never be persuaded by its constituents to draft such a measure!

It would be like a judge overturning Roe v. Wade because it had "no rational purpose."

Posted by: JJB | Mar 15, 2005 12:07:51 AM

JJB:

So, you are saying that the Republicans (Pete Wilson) appointed judicial activists as well? So, you are saying that it really doesn't matter what party is in the leadership, because they both appoint activist judges, right?

I would say that this should prove to Republicans that Democrats are not the only ones to appoint activist judges. Maybe we should consider other issues as well when considering which party to support.

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | Mar 15, 2005 3:33:12 AM

Well ya see, if a bunch of people passed a law, but the law violates the Constitution, then it isn't judicial advocacy- it's doing what judges are supposed to do. LEgislatures and citizens pass "bad" laws all the time. Having judicial OVERSITE is what keeps the country from democratic mob rule. If 50.01 % of the country decided it was time to reinstitute slavery and voted on it, that would not mean it's legal.

Rational purpose is the test used to determine if the state can do something to restrict someones rights. One could argue thata highly infectious person would not have the same right to travel around freely because there would be a rational purpose for that - keeping the public safe. This conservative, Republican, Catholic judge found there was NO such rational purpose in CA, no matter what the citizens say. So no JJB, it isn't like a judge overturning Roe V Wade, but like a judge overturning seperate but equal laws in Brown vs. the Board of Education.

Posted by: The Cranky Liberal | Mar 15, 2005 5:49:06 AM

Hey! Can I join in on this? Sounds fun!!!!

Judicial Activism as defined by Wikipedia (after this discussion it will probably be labeled a dictionary activism)

Those who label judges as "judicial activists" believe the justices are subverting the democratic process. The feel broadly interpreting the law as through judicial review leaves an unreasonable concentration of power in the hands of a privileged few, and running contrary to the principles of popular sovereignty. Others see such rulings as an important balance on lawmakers' power, preventing a tyranny of the majority, which is seen as worse than a tyranny of five people in black robes.

Critics of judicial activism believe that the Constitution should be interpreted according to original intent. By this, they mean that we should interpret the words according to that they meant at the time they were written. For example, critics argue that "phrases like "due process" and "freedom of the press" had a long established meaning in British law, even before they were put into the Constitution of the United States."

Most of the criticism of judicial activism in the American corporate media focuses on liberal judges. The left on the other hand says the right has a long history of judicial activism, going back to the 19th century endowment of corporations with the same rights as citizens. Opponents of judicial activism claim it's not about liberal v conservative at all, but about whether judges or elected representatives should make law, and whether the US Constitution should be interpreted strictly or whether it is an "evolving document". Indeed, opponents can point to supporters of original intent such as SCOTUS justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas whose strict interpretation of the Constitution at times led them to make "liberal" rulings.

Divisions can also break along partisan lines, as in the case of Bush v. Gore, which offended liberals. However, defenders of SCOTUS's ruling here claim that they were merely overturning a very broad interpretation of the Florida State Constitution by their Supreme Court.

This should back up Dr. Forbush's comment and its a lot more detailed then the original definition that was posted.

Oh and other things that were overturned by activist judges were;

Brown v. Board of Education desegregated public education
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, requiring manual recounts in Dade County, Florida after the December 12 deadline set in statute (i.e. seven days after the election).
Bush v. Gore overturned above ruling, declaring that recounts in only some counties but not others violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Goodridge et al. v. Department of Public Health overturned a Massachusetts law banning gay marriage
Griswold v. Connecticut decriminalized the use of contraceptives between married couples
Lawrence v. Texas struck down U.S. sodomy laws
Loving v. Virginia invalidated anti-miscegenation laws and allowing interracial marriage
Dred Scott v. Sandford declared Negroes inherently inferior to Whites and validated slavery
Roe v. Wade declared the criminalization of abortion unconstitutional
Roper v. Simmons declared that executing prisoners who committed capital crimes as minors is unconstitutional.

So the way I see it if it wasn't for an activist judge G.W.B wouldn't be president. Cranky is right DAMN THOSE ACTIVIST JUDGES

Posted by: The Bastard | Mar 15, 2005 7:52:02 AM

http://lawandpolitics.blogspot.com/2005_03_01_lawandpolitics_archive.html#111077566131427199

Posted by: Marrty | Mar 15, 2005 10:57:38 AM

Activist judges are defined completely based on one's definition and bleifs. "See Truth: http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2005/02/truth.html#comments

If a judge acts contrarily to one's viewpoint, they are given the lable of Activist. What W, Rove and Co are looknig for are "their" kind of Activist Judge. Which is why they can't come up with different nominies rather than recycling rejects from the prior term?

That said, getting heat in the form of flame commentary by reichwingers should be worn like a badge of courage given that there is minimal, if any, rhetorical or logical rationale to support their view points. Their modus operandi is readily apparent:
http://educationalwhisper.blogspot.com/2005/02/underlying-humor-in-reichwing-argument.html#comments

Posted by: windspike | Mar 15, 2005 1:04:05 PM

"Any time a judge strikes a law, written by Constitutionally-elected representives of the State, because it had "no rational purpose" is CLEARLY activism."

So I guess Brown Vs Board of Education, Segregation, and Roe Vs Wade are all forms of activism waiting to be overturned?

Posted by: FaerieWizard | Mar 15, 2005 3:44:27 PM

Our Beloved Nation is dying of “judicial cancer”, it is time to act, and we can’t stand by and let it happen.

The time has come; we must stop the judicial tyranny that plagues our Nation.

All tyrannical judges must be made accountable for their actions, removed from the bench and punished according to the U.S. Constitution.

These tyrants are getting more arrogant and presumptuous by the day.

We can’t have pity for these abominable murderers because if we do they will eat us alive.

The gloves must come off, politics must be set aside and Congress must go into search and destroy mode.

After a few activist judges are crushed and made an example, the others will watch their steps very carefully regardless of their love affair with death and debauchery.


Posted by: Henry Asta | Apr 9, 2005 10:42:14 PM

Grab your guns Annie, there's a trouble a brewing at the OK caral!

Just because they rule against what you thought was right does not make them activists.

Posted by: The Bastard | Apr 10, 2005 12:12:43 PM

Remember when Judges or even lawyers learned about the Judge we are all taught about in the Bible that settled an agreement between two women as to who the real mother was of a child? Well in Evidence class they learn about that story. Most of the Judges today though just ignore getting at the truth of a matter though, all they want is to settle a case and get it out of their court room. As though they get paid extra for kicking your case out.I mean really why are they on the bench for? The Honorable Judge Barbara Scheper is only concerned about that, not justice. When a lawyer submits a "Under penalty of purjury" document, and interrogatories and their client has lied and you bring proof of them admitting it on tape, a Judge who is concerned about fairness, and justice, would have thrown out their motion. But this judge could care less about getting at the truth, she is only concerned about getting you out of her courtroom to clear her calender. Oh, and she shows favoritism as well. She allows some lawyers to be late in getting motions in, and others she says no to.
Liberty is said to be the guarantor of justice, but don't look for liberty or justice in her court room, because you won't find any.

Posted by: JoAnna | Nov 22, 2005 10:07:30 PM

Remember when Judges or even lawyers learned about the Judge we are all taught about in the Bible that settled an agreement between two women as to who the real mother was of a child? Well in Evidence class they learn about that story. Most of the Judges today though just ignore getting at the truth of a matter though, all they want is to settle a case and get it out of their court room. As though they get paid extra for kicking your case out.I mean really why are they on the bench for? The Honorable Judge Barbara Scheper is only concerned about that, not justice. When a lawyer submits a "Under penalty of purjury" document, and interrogatories and their client has lied and you bring proof of them admitting it on tape, a Judge who is concerned about fairness, and justice, would have thrown out their motion. But this judge could care less about getting at the truth, she is only concerned about getting you out of her courtroom to clear her calender. Oh, and she shows favoritism as well. She allows some lawyers to be late in getting motions in, and others she says no to.
Liberty is said to be the guarantor of justice, but don't look for liberty or justice in her court room, because you won't find any.

Posted by: JoAnna | Nov 22, 2005 10:10:19 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.