The following is an excerpt from a statement made by Senator Harry Reid on October 31st, 2005, regarding the Presidents recent Supreme Court nomination.
“I look forward to meeting Judge Alito and learning why those who want to pack the Court with judicial activists are so much more enthusiastic about him than they were about Harriet Miers.”
A very disturbing statement, because I can scarcely believe it is geniune. And one of the greatest evils is a dishonest politician, because you know they aren't looking out for you, me, or the American people. Who are the people who want to pack the Court with "judicial activists," I ask you? I suppose to answer that question we can look at those on the Court now, determine who the activists are, and see who has supported them.
Heres the Webster definition of activism:
: a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue
Judicial Activism could be defined as a doctrine that supports vigorous action in support of changing the current Judicial system. These are people who want the courts to have more power.
You could do a weeks worth of research on this topic, but lets just take a couple of cases the Supreme Court has decided which change the current system and give itself more power.
Roe v. Wade, 1971
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 1992
You can read about them on your own, and there are many others but in Roe for example, the Supreme Court struck down laws passed by state legislatures. This means that the people of the respective states elected representatives, who then enacted the laws. Clearly, these laws representred the will of the people. But the Court took power unto itself, and wrought a sweeping change in the system. Activism at work.
To keep it brief, we will stick with just those examples. Clearly, those who want to 'pack the court with judicial activists' are those who oppose the recent nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, and favor Justices like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter. These are the liberal democrats, such as Harry Reid.
Now if Harry Reid really believes what he said, then I pity his misguided soul. But I can hardly fathom that he is so blind. If, on the other hand, he isnt sincere, then he is fomenting the worst kind of disinformation on the American people. He would be lying for power, and many, many people hear people like him and believe what they are saying, because that is the only message they are getting thanks to our insanely biased media.
2 comments:
Sometimes the 'will of the people' is wrong. That' why we have separation of powers.
The court system is here to protect the rights of individuals, not the majority.
When a jurist hands down a decision that doesn't agree with what you believe, it doesn't make them an 'activist' judge.
I would disagree with your first sentence, the reasoning of which should be apparent from my posting.
As to your second statement, its one of those feel-good sound-good statements that doesnt really do anything. First of all, this obsession with protecting all these minorities has caused limitless problems here in America.
And I wont label someone an activist for handing down a decision that doesnt agree with me (See my comments on voting down Prop 73.) Advocating changes away from the norm is what makes you an activist. Not always a bad thing, but as a judge, definately a bad thing. Changes to laws are supposed to be orchestrated through the legislature. See, people who advocate change by the courts are admitting that they are trying to go against the will of the people, else why circumvent the ballot?
Post a Comment