woops i mean U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor

There is no such thing as an activist judge only a judge who makes decisions that some people don't agree with. We have an independant judiciary for a reason.

Discuss

8/17/2006 12:56:00 PM

fine i wont ruin your thread

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 1:06 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 12:56:51 PM

Um this is a real thread to discuss the idea of activist judges, please don't gay it up

8/17/2006 12:58:29 PM

i think you might have fucked up your thread title on purpose

8/17/2006 1:02:53 PM

Of course I fucked it up on purpose, its a reference to the "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper stickers and billboards that dotted the country in the 60's.

The idea of impeaching a judge is something that has come back into discussion recently

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 1:05:21 PM

Quote :

"There is no such thing as an activist judge"

In the ideal world.

Quote :

"only a judge who makes decisions that some people don't agree with."

I'd say that the overwhelming majority of judges that people label as activist fall into this category but I wouldn't go so far as to say that there is no such thing as an activist judge.

8/17/2006 1:17:25 PM

So joe citizen gets to decide if a judge's interpretation of the constitution is correct? I'm sorry I missed that check and balance.

8/17/2006 1:18:57 PM

Sorry, I live in a country where you can vote for judges.

8/17/2006 1:21:52 PM

Well then lets keep this conversation about federal judges, because you could always just not vote for an elected judge


[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 1:28 PM. Reason : federal judges are appointed]

8/17/2006 1:24:04 PM

I guess you really have to nail down a definition for "activist judge."

If there was no such thing as an activist judge, or even the potential for an activist judge then I suspect the week long debates that take place over Supreme Court nominees would be a moot point.

8/17/2006 2:41:04 PM

^haha, nice

8/17/2006 2:42:36 PM

So theres no need to debate qualifications?

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 2:43 PM. Reason : but yes, much of the worry was warrantless]

8/17/2006 2:43:04 PM

Oh, they debate qualifications?

Seems to me it was generally court-opinions and beliefs.

8/17/2006 2:44:37 PM

Were they debating qualifications or were they debating "would you overrule Roe v. Wade?

8/17/2006 2:45:05 PM

Judges often times don't have unanimous decisions. Not coming to the same conclusion on an issue is not the same as deciding an issue based on your personal beliefs.

8/17/2006 2:49:29 PM

Agreed, but you have to admit that judges have the ability to make a court decision based on their personal opinions.

8/17/2006 3:33:54 PM

Agreed, but you have to admit that judges aren't androids.

8/17/2006 3:38:27 PM

Yeah I wish they had to write court opinions justifying their position

8/17/2006 3:38:36 PM

Quote :

"There is no such thing as an activist judge only a judge who makes decisions that some people don't agree with."

This statement would be true if not for something called the Constitution.

Quote :

" We have an independant judiciary for a reason."

Checks and balances. The check in this case is that judges do not have the power to draft new laws. Only interpret existing ones. When a judge defies his or her duty to interpret existing laws and attempts to formulate new rules as they see fit, they've become an activist judge.

8/17/2006 9:00:47 PM

Actually, that'd be referred to as a balance.

8/17/2006 9:04:45 PM

oic

8/17/2006 9:05:38 PM

Judges can't formulate new laws

8/17/2006 9:37:19 PM

Interestingly enough, the man who appointed Warren to the bench, Eisenhower, said that it was the single worst decision he made as President.

8/17/2006 9:42:52 PM

No, but the phenomenon he's referring to (which I'd rather not spend the time arguing about the semantics of) is representative of the "balance" side of "checks and balances."

8/17/2006 9:43:13 PM

Quote :

"Interestingly enough, the man who appointed Warren to the bench, Eisenhower, said that it was the single worst decision he made as President."

Actually he just said it was a bad decision because it was motivated by politics, but you know... twist that how youd like

8/17/2006 9:47:11 PM

Do you even know the quote? He actually said it was the biggest damn fool decision he ever made in his life. Just how do you spin that?

8/17/2006 9:49:40 PM

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9902E3D9153AF93BA15754C0A961958260

and i know the quote you are talking about, but have never seen any authoritative source confirm it

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 9:53 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 9:51:16 PM

of course you can have an "activist judge." it's called "legislating from the bench."

i concur that a large % of such accusations are just because people disagree with the decision, but to say that there are no such things as activist judges is just stupid.

8/17/2006 10:25:18 PM

Which is a shortened way of arguing through the semantics.

Thx to Duke.

8/17/2006 10:36:08 PM

but can you agree that so called "accountability" legislation is harmful

8/18/2006 8:51:11 AM

...?

Is that supposed to be like laws to regulate the decisions of judges?

Nevermind how absolutely effective I'm sure such legislation would end up once it'd been compromised to death, that'd create serious separation of powers issues.

8/18/2006 1:34:07 PM

have you not heard about any of this proposed legislation? i'll find some examples

8/18/2006 1:41:09 PM

Can't find anything, basically it allows people to punish or remove judges

8/18/2006 2:28:09 PM

basically you're full of shit.

8/18/2006 2:29:13 PM

No, it was proposed in texas (or a square state) recently but I can't find anything.

But even if it wasn't my question about if he could agree that such legislation was harmful is still valid.

In conclusion, you are a retarded troll who should probably get off this site and go suck jacklegs dick.

8/18/2006 2:31:33 PM

jacklegs dick is around? where?

[Edited on August 18, 2006 at 2:32 PM. Reason : I LOVE ME SOME JACKLEG DICK MMM MMM]

8/18/2006 2:32:10 PM

0< 0<

8/18/2006 2:35:08 PM

you should listen to me, even though i can't prove what i say.

and when you call me out on it, ill just call you a troll....since that's such an easy out.

[Edited on August 18, 2006 at 2:36 PM. Reason : df]

8/18/2006 2:35:42 PM

0< 0<

8/18/2006 2:41:58 PM

im glad my ducks have caught on.

its a shame that people don't know when you use them though.

8/18/2006 2:46:44 PM

Rehnquist's fourth annual report talks about the criticism of activist judges
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/year-end/2004year-endreport.pdf

Tom DeLay "has repeatedly threatened to impeach liberal-leaning judges for their rulings, such as the ban on school-sponsored prayers." (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050128.html)

Bring Back Our Balance of Power
By Tom DeLay (R-Sugar Land)
old but here: http://www.jfa.net/VOJ/July97.html



related, commentary on the good bahavior clause:
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/November-December-2005/toa_novdec05.msp

8/18/2006 2:54:33 PM

Questions about effictiveness of any such agreed-upon law notwithstanding, it'd create serious separation of powers issues. I'll be amazed to see a conviction under any such law during my lifetime.

8/18/2006 2:56:01 PM

I see there's some Earl Warren hate in here as well as the activist judge talk. Just curious, what exactly did Earl Warren do that was such an abomination? Off the top of my head, I can tell you his rulings gave us desegregated schools, miranda rights, and allowed hispanic-americans to serve on juries by the time he retired in the late 60's. What exactly did he do that still brings hate against him?

"I always turn to the sports section first. The sports section records people's accomplishments; the front page nothing but man's failures." ~Earl Warren

[Edited on August 18, 2006 at 11:53 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2006 11:49:11 PM

he's only hated by racists

8/19/2006 12:06:22 AM

who are you implying is racist here?

8/20/2006 8:33:22 PM

the people who hate earl warren

8/21/2006 5:30:11 PM

ahah, people don't like Earl Warren?

IMPEACH OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES.

AND THAT BASTARD BRANDEIS, TOO!

8/21/2006 5:45:18 PM

Quote :

"who are you implying is racist here?"

why does it matter?

8/21/2006 5:55:07 PM