An interesting article on Judges and the 'Judicial Activism' politicians talk about. This breaks it down into simple, digestible chunks below, but i say read the rest of it to see where we are. It's short.
What does President Bush mean, if anything, when he says that his kind of judge 'knows the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law'? Every judge sincerely believes that he or she is interpreting the law properly.
Bush's complaint must be understood in the context of Republican Party history over the last half-century. Ever since Chief Justice Earl Warren and Brown vs. Board of Education (the 1954 school desegregation case), conservatives have complained about 'activist' judges and justices who allegedly imposed their own liberal dictates on the country with no legal basis. Taking up this rallying cry is one way Republicans won the South. Even Southern conservatives don't publicly complain about Brown anymore, of course. But denouncing activist judges is now Republican boilerplate.
[...]
George W. Bush may get to appoint as many as four Supreme Court justices, including the chief. But the complaint about liberal activism has been quaint for decades. All three chief justices since the "activism" fuss began were appointed by Republican presidents. Earl Warren, it's true, was a bitter surprise to Republicans, but Warren E. Burger was not, and William H. Rehnquist was a positive delight. Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision (which Burger supported), and has been in retreat now for longer than it lasted.
No comments:
Post a Comment