What Do We Do About Activist Judges? (1 Viewer)

[Squawker]

This has been going on since Roe VS Wade, but it seems to be getting worse. Judges are making laws, (by calling something unconstitutional) from Religion to Gay marriage. Why are we allowing these judges to undermine our Constitution, and over ride our own legislature and peoples voice?

In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on "evolving notions of decency" was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said.

"If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again," Scalia told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington think tank. "You think the death penalty is a good idea? Persuade your fellow citizens to adopt it. You want a right to abortion? Persuade your fellow citizens and enact it. That's flexibility."

"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he said.

Source

 

[Squawker]

Sorry about answering my own post first, but I wanted to include this which pertains to the subject. Mark Levin has a new book out – this is a review of it, so if you are interested in the history of the Supreme Court, this is a must read. We should all be outraged at what we have allowed them to do.

In "Men in Black," Levin takes us on an engrossing ride through history detailing how the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself a sort of tyrannical power that threatens our constitutional architecture and freedom.
From its pronouncements on the Commerce Clause, to its rulings on abortion, immigration, civil rights for terrorists, religious liberty, affirmative action, pornography and election law, Levin shows how the Court has usurped authority from the other two branches to become the most powerful of the three.
The judiciary was never intended to be a policy-making branch, unaccountable to the people. But that is precisely what it has become, as Jefferson and others ominously predicted. And the situation is getting worse.
In recent years, presumably out of some irresistable urge to impress "enlightened" European socialists, certain progressive Supreme Court justices have been flirting with the idea of grafting the laws and customs of foreign nations into the Constitution without a scintilla of authority under the Constitution to do so.

 

[ShamMol]

"Why in the world would you have it interpreted by nine lawyers?" he said.

Because, as designated by the Marbury case, that is the courts responsibility. The country may not want the "nine [highly qualified and brilliant] lawyers" interpreting the constitution, but that is literally their job. It is their job to decide what is and what is not constitutional.

If a law came up saying that driving a car was illegal, and they said that was unconstitutional, would you have the same outcry because they are legislating from the bench, as you put it. No, you wouldn't. This is their job, nothing more, nothing less.

The lower courts in briefs and motions befor trials decide whether laws are applicable in the case and in some cases decide htat the law is not constitutional, and therefore the case does not go forward. Is that legislating from the bench? No, it is doing their job. Period.

--Onto Mark Levins--

In "Men in Black," Levin takes us on an engrossing ride through history detailing how the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself a sort of tyrannical power that threatens our constitutional architecture and freedom.
From its pronouncements on the Commerce Clause, to its rulings on abortion, immigration, civil rights for terrorists, religious liberty, affirmative action, pornography and election law, Levin shows how the Court has usurped authority from the other two branches to become the most powerful of the three.
The judiciary was never intended to be a policy-making branch, unaccountable to the people. But that is precisely what it has become, as Jefferson and others ominously predicted. And the situation is getting worse.
In recent years, presumably out of some irresistable urge to impress "enlightened" European socialists, certain progressive Supreme Court justices have been flirting with the idea of grafting the laws and customs of foreign nations into the Constitution without a scintilla of authority under the Constitution to do so.

This man first off is extremely biased. Just look who he normally writes for...the National Review, a right-wing media corporation that is the conservative hack the liberals make Greenspan out to be (he is really not a hack, but he has to keep his job). So, take everything he says with a grain of salt. If you read the statement...the only thing, according to Mark Levin, that the court should do, is restrict rights (which actually it can't really do per se under the 9th amendment...but hey, we'll let that slide). But in fact, under the first courts ruling, they interpret, define, and decide whethere laws are unconstitutional. It is their job.

And onto his little statement about using international law when making their decisions. Whenever possible, the court, since international law existed...which is after the UN started up...so...not recent unlike what he said, has been used to help to justify their posistions. It is not the basis for their arguments, think of it more as a brace for the backbone, just helping to support it.

 

[Hoot]

>>In a 35-minute speech Monday, Scalia said unelected judges have no place deciding issues such as abortion and the death penalty. The court's 5-4 ruling March 1 to outlaw the juvenile death penalty based on "evolving notions of decency" was simply a mask for the personal policy preferences of the five-member majority, he said. <<

This is what gets me about the Supreme Court...."evolving notions of decency?"

Since when is our Constitution subject to the whims and fads of society?

I'm not arguing about the death penalty decision...just the fact that an idiot like Scalia actually believes the Constitution should forever evolve and change simply because society changes!

Evolving notions of decency? There is no such application when interpreting the Constitution.

 

[shuamort]

This has been going on since Roe VS Wade, but it seems to be getting worse. Judges are making laws, (by calling something unconstitutional) from Religion to Gay marriage. Why are we allowing these judges to undermine our Constitution, and over ride our own legislature and peoples voice?

It IS constitutional. Has been since Marbury v Madison in 1803. That's 200+ years. They're NOT overriding the legislature, they're interpretting the law and then the legislature has the ability to write a clearer bill that will enforce the will of the people. What's the misunderstanding?

 

[shuamort]

By the way, judges don't just sneak into the courts and start making rulings. They are either elected by the common folks or are appointed by people whom we've voted in. Should Rehnquist die/retire, Bush, who was elected by the people*, will get to fill in that position.

*Edited to include: Elected by the electorate of the people. Sorry. Electoral collegiate mistake.

 

[shuamort]

Oh, you know Squawker, we went over this before too. You weren't able to refute the arguments about judicial fiats in this thread either.

 

[Squawker]

Oh, you know Squawker, we went over this before too. You weren't able to refute the arguments about judicial fiats in this thread either.

I was the last one to post in that thread, so I don’t see how I failed to do anything. The Marbury v. Madison case, was just a political p*ssing contest because the Republicans won the election. (Some things never change) The court assumed new powers that were not entitled to them. In typical Republican style even then, the legislature didn’t fight it.

Marshall's decision in this case has been hailed as a judicial tour de force. In essence, he declared that Madison should have delivered the commission to Marbury, but then held that the section of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that gave the Supreme Court the power to issue writs of mandamus exceeded the authority allotted the Court under Article III of the Constitution, and was therefore null and void. Thus he was able to chastise the Jeffersonians and yet not create a situation in which a court order would be flouted.
The critical importance of Marbury is the assumption of several powers by the Supreme Court. One was the authority to declare acts of Congress, and by implication acts of the president, unconstitutional if they exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. But even more important, the Court became the arbiter of the Constitution, the final authority on what the document meant. As such, the Supreme Court became in fact as well as in theory an equal partner in government, and it has played that role ever since.

Source

What Scalia said, was that it has to be in the constitution, for the courts to be allowed to rule on it. The constitution does not give a woman the right to kill her own child, therefore the court cannot decide that it is “unconstitutional”.

 

[shuamort]

I was the last one to post in that thread, so I don’t see how I failed to do anything.

You failed because your posts were no longer germane to my points.

The Marbury v. Madison case, was just a political p*ssing contest because the Republicans won the election. (Some things never change) The court assumed new powers that were not entitled to them. In typical Republican style even then, the legislature didn’t fight it.
Source [/b]

The new chief justice, John Marshall, understood that if the Court awarded Marbury a writ of mandamus (an order to force Madison to deliver the commission) the Jefferson administration would ignore it, and thus significantly weaken the authority of the courts. On the other hand, if the Court denied the writ, it might well appear that the justices had acted out of fear. Either case would be a denial of the basic principle of the supremacy of the law.

Of course, this has been in effect for over 200 years. And at that time, the republicans (vs the Federalists) held control not only over the Congress but the Presidency. If they didn't like the MvM decision, they most certainly could have legislated a law to stop it. And so on over the last 200 years. And you know what? That HAS NOT HAPPENED. It sure hasn't been too problematic over the course of the last 200 years to keep the balance of power in check by means of MvM (Dred Scott excluded, of course).

What Scalia said, was that it has to be in the constitution, for the courts to be allowed to rule on it. The constitution does not give a woman the right to kill her own child, therefore the court cannot decide that it is “unconstitutional”.

Scalia's loosey goosey interpretation of what is in the constitution is laughable. He has a hard time understanding what precedence is and as such is a fringe member of the far right.

 

[Squawker]

Shuamort said:

You failed because your posts were no longer germane to my points.

lol Thank you for clarifying the debate rules for us.

Of course, this has been in effect for over 200 years. And at that time, the republicans (vs the Federalists) held control not only over the Congress but the Presidency. If they didn't like the MvM decision, they most certainly could have legislated a law to stop it. And so on over the last 200 years. And you know what? That HAS NOT HAPPENED. It sure hasn't been too problematic over the course of the last 200 years to keep the balance of power in check by means of MvM (Dred Scott excluded, of course).

As you know, the court did not misuse their assumed power or usurp their authority until the 20th century. The legislature failed to do their job, but that doesn’t mean we should continue to allow them to abdicate decisions to the court. The States have lost the ability to make law “for the people, by the people.

Scalia's loosey goosey interpretation of what is in the constitution is laughable. He has a hard time understanding what precedence is and as such is a fringe member of the far right.

Unless you have the education Justice Scalia has, I suggest you keep your insults to yourself. Do you intend to have a serious discussion or just use this forum to bash Republicans?

 

[anomaly]

Shuamort said:


lol Thank you for clarifying the debate rules for us.
As you know, the court did not misuse their assumed power or usurp their authority until the 20th century. The legislature failed to do their job, but that doesn’t mean we should continue to allow them to abdicate decisions to the court. The States have lost the ability to make law “for the people, by the people.

Unless you have the education Justice Scalia has, I suggest you keep your insults to yourself. Do you intend to have a serious discussion or just use this forum to bash Republicans?

I'd love a forum in which to bash Republicans! Joking, of course, but Shuamort, I support your Republican bashing 100%.

 

[Squawker]

I'd love a forum in which to bash Republicans! Joking, of course, but Shuamort, I support your Republican bashing 100%.

Allow me to be of assistance.
Hate Group They are so open minded, No Republicans need apply. Have fun.

 

[anomaly]

Allow me to be of assistance.
Hate Group They are so open minded, No Republicans need apply. Have fun.

How can there exist a Democratic underground? They're a major party! It's not underground at all! The anti-capitalist movement is largely underground, but the Democratic party? Come on.

 

[shuamort]

lol Thank you for clarifying the debate rules for us.

I made my statements, presented my side of the opinions. You argued your side, I offered a rebuttal, you ignored the rebuttal and went off on a tangent. Point for me since you didn't address the points made. Simple debate.

As you know, the court did not misuse their assumed power or usurp their authority until the 20th century. The legislature failed to do their job, but that doesn’t mean we should continue to allow them to abdicate decisions to the court. The States have lost the ability to make law “for the people, by the people.

Seriously not trying to offend, but the very existence of the Marbury v Madison decision goes against your belief of what the power of the judicial branch has. Now you're backpedaling and saying that it didn't start until the 20th Century? Please. You're saying that because they're making decisions that you don't like now. By your assertion you're supporting the decision of Dred Scott as being ok because the judicial fiat made then was made in 1857.

Unless you have the education Justice Scalia has, I suggest you keep your insults to yourself. Do you intend to have a serious discussion or just use this forum to bash Republicans?

Pfft, justice cannot have party allegiances. It's obvious what side of his bread is buttered obviously. If you can find a decision written by Scalia that supports precedence I'd be HIGHLY surprised. Because. He. Doesn't. I have no respect for the man since he rules with his personal beliefs rather than by precedent.

 

[ShamMol]

Unless you have the education Justice Scalia has, I suggest you keep your insults to yourself. Do you intend to have a serious discussion or just use this forum to bash Republicans?

Unfortunately he is right squawk. Scalia always cites one thing in each one of his opinions (Btw, ever read them? They are really boring and...whats the word...cluttered, but onto the point) and that one thing is FOUNDERS INTENT. Question-what does he know about what the founders intended? Did they write directly what they intended into the constitution. Basically, it is his saying that he can't find legal precedence, so he has to say that is waht they thought.

The point of this post is to say (and please at least respond to this) that whether or not the Marbury case was correct, it established that the court could rule things unconstitutional and that it was in fact, the job of the court to do so. So, if that was the Legal precedence for their deciding laws unconstitutional, then they are not being activist (such a negative word...) judges and are instead just doing their bloody job. Am I wrong. When they are sworn in, are they not bound by past findings of the court, or are they just thrown out the window like you want Marbury to be?

 

[Squawker]

Seriously not trying to offend, but the very existence of the Marbury v Madison decision goes against your belief of what the power of the judicial branch has. Now you're backpedaling and saying that it didn't start until the 20th Century? Please. You're saying that because they're making decisions that you don't like now. By your assertion you're supporting the decision of Dred Scott as being ok because the judicial fiat made then was made in 1857.

My exact wording was "misuse their assumed power", but you are right, it was 57 years later before it was used. My opinion is, if it doesn’t pertain to “Federal matters” ie how the Government operates in relation to the constitution, it is not a Supreme Court issue and should be decided by the States. The Marbury vs Madison case reminds me of what we see happening today with Democrats using the filibuster to force a 60 majority vote for the Judges. Ted Kennedy used almost the same wording as the Federalist did when the Republicans won the election back in 1800. Ted said “They have the Executive branch and the Legislative branch, they are not going to have the Judicial Branch”. The Democrats are trying to change the rules, (as the Federalists did) this time, of how Judges are selected. If the Republicans do nothing as they appeared to do in 1800, the new rule (60 majority vote) would stand, simply by not getting challenged. Would that make it a legal binding law? That isn’t how laws are made.

Pfft, justice cannot have party allegiances.

We all know better than that. Democrats have packed the courts with Liberal Judges every time the get a chance. That is why they are fighting so hard now. If they actually get some Judges on the bench who take the Constitution seriously, they won’t have the power to over rule the peoples vote. Yes, I am dead serious about that statement.

It's obvious what side of his bread is buttered obviously. If you can find a decision written by Scalia that supports precedence I'd be HIGHLY surprised. Because. He. Doesn't. I have no respect for the man since he rules with his personal beliefs rather than by precedent.

He rules by the Constitution, which seems to be a lost art. Just because some radical Judge set precedence and got away with it, doesn’t mean we have to be stuck forever with a poor decision.

 

[Squawker]

ShamMol Said:

Unfortunately he is right squawk. Scalia always cites one thing in each one of his opinions (Btw, ever read them? They are really boring and...whats the word...cluttered, but onto the point) and that one thing is FOUNDERS INTENT. Question-what does he know about what the founders intended? Did they write directly what they intended into the constitution. Basically, it is his saying that he can't find legal precedence, so he has to say that is waht they thought.

This is an ideological divide, so I am not sure it is relevant. Republicans have a different view of the Constitution and Governments role, than the Democrats do.

The point of this post is to say (and please at least respond to this) that whether or not the Marbury case was correct, it established that the court could rule things unconstitutional and that it was in fact, the job of the court to do so. So, if that was the Legal precedence for their deciding laws unconstitutional, then they are not being activist (such a negative word...) judges and are instead just doing their bloody job. Am I wrong. When they are sworn in, are they not bound by past findings of the court, or are they just thrown out the window like you want Marbury to be?

That is a question the Legislature should address. I would certainly hope the Republicans have the guts to follow through, and give the power back to the Legislature as it should be. As I said above, the Democrats will fight it, because they do not want the people to decide these issues for themselves. The States have the right and obligation to make their own laws, with the full permission of the people that reside in that State.

 

[shuamort]

My exact wording was "misuse their assumed power", but you are right, it was 57 years later before it was used. My opinion is, if it doesn’t pertain to “Federal matters” ie how the Government operates in relation to the constitution, it is not a Supreme Court issue and should be decided by the States. The Marbury vs Madison case reminds me of what we see happening today with Democrats using the filibuster to force a 60 majority vote for the Judges.

Ted Kennedy used almost the same wording as the Federalist did when the Republicans won the election back in 1800. Ted said “They have the Executive branch and the Legislative branch, they are not going to have the Judicial Branch”. The Democrats are trying to change the rules, (as the Federalists did) this time, of how Judges are selected. If the Republicans do nothing as they appeared to do in 1800, the new rule (60 majority vote) would stand, simply by not getting challenged. Would that make it a legal binding law? That isn’t how laws are made.

We all know better than that. Democrats have packed the courts with Liberal Judges every time the get a chance. That is why they are fighting so hard now.

You make it seem that only Democrats pack judges into the seats. 55% of the federally appointed judges are by Republicans.

Moreover, REPUBLICANS HAVE FILIBUSTERED BEFORE (REMEMBER CLINTON?)

Filibusters of a handful of the Bush Administration's judicial nominations have been prompted by the Administration's insistence on selecting nominees with extreme records (Charles Pickering, Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor and others), in an effort to pack the courts with ideologues who will undermine critical legal rights and protections. The federal courts are already tilted to the right because obstructionist tactics blocked so many Clinton Administration nominees - the Senate failed to confirm over one-third of the Clinton nominations to the Courts of Appeals - and the balancing process that normally takes place over time, as administrations change, has not occurred. If this trend continues, the federal courts all across the country will be dominated by judges who do not support civil and women's rights or protections for workers or the environment. With the Senate controlled by the same party as the White House, Senate filibusters are the only way to stop the most extreme nominees.


Filibusters have been used sparingly -- there has been no blockade of Bush Administration nominations. Over 200 judicial nominations were confirmed in the Administration's first term, while only 10 of the most extreme were filibustered. President Bush has appointed 24% of all active federal judges, and 20% of all Circuit Court judges, in just four years.


The repeated claim that filibusters of judicial nominations are "unprecedented" is both false and hypocritical. Not only has there been a filibuster of a Supreme Court Justice (the nomination of Abe Fortas to serve as Chief Justice in 1968), but between 1980 and 2002, cloture motions (the way filibusters are broken) were filed on 14 Court of Appeals and District Court nominations, according to the Congressional Research Service. For example, cloture petitions were necessary in 2000 to obtain votes on the Clinton Administration nominations of Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon to the Ninth Circuit, after opponents repeatedly delayed action on them - for over four years in Paez's case - and then openly declared a filibuster. Sen. Frist was among those voting against cloture on the Paez nomination.


Criticism of filibusters to block Senate votes on nominations rings hollow when it comes not only from those who have supported past filibusters but also those who blocked Senate votes on Clinton Administration nominations by letting them die invisible deaths in committee - in effect, filibusters by committee inaction. When Sen. Hatch chaired the Judiciary Committee from 1995-2001, dozens of highly qualified judicial nominees had no hearing at all or had a hearing but no committee action. These included two nominees to the D.C. Circuit (one of whom is now Dean of Harvard Law School), two Hispanic nominees to the Fifth Circuit (Jorge Rangel and Enrique Moreno), and several female nominees (such as Helene White for the Sixth Circuit, who went over four years without a hearing). This past obstructionism is relevant not because it justifies "tit for tat," but because it suggests that some of those criticizing filibusters now are less concerned about majority rule than about ramming through their favored nominees - and because, as noted above, the blockade of Clinton nominees has caused a lack of balance on the judiciary that will be exacerbated if the current effort to pack the courts succeeds.



Filibustering judicial nominations is constitutional. The Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 5) gives the Senate the power to make its own rules, and Senate Rule XXII imposes a 60-vote cloture requirement to end debate on legislation or nominations. The Constitution does not say that a simple majority vote is required for Senate confirmation of nominations. To read into the Constitution a simple majority requirement for nominations - let alone a prohibition on filibusters on nominations - would be the opposite of "strict constructionism." And if it were unconstitutional to filibuster a nomination because it allows a minority to prevail, it would be unconstitutional for the Judiciary Committee chairman to fail to schedule action on a nominee, or for the Majority Leader to fail to take up a nomination on the floor - tactics that allow a minority of one to prevail - yet no one is challenging the constitutionality of these actions.


A nominee to a powerful, lifetime seat on a federal court should be able to secure the confidence of 60% of the Senate. Filibusters on legislation are commonplace, and even more justified when needed to stop a lifetime judicial appointment. Legislation can always be amended or repealed, and executive branch appointments last only for finite terms -- but once the Senate confirms a judge, its decision is irrevocable, given the rarity of impeachment. And federal judges wield enormous power: the Courts of Appeals have the final word in the vast majority of cases, and they have tremendous latitude to interpret and apply the broad principles laid down by the Supreme Court. Their decisions determine the scope and meaning of our most fundamental rights and liberties.


Filibusters can be essential to protecting the will of the minority, as even some critics of current filibusters have acknowledged. As Sen. Hatch said when other Senators were filibustering a Clinton Administration nomination to the Third Circuit in 1994, the filibuster is "one of the few tools that the minority has to protect itself and those the minority represents." Conservative commentator George Will, after objecting to one recent filibuster, now says, "The filibuster is an important defense of minority rights, enabling democratic government to measure and respect not merely numbers but also intensity in public controversies."


The way to make filibusters unnecessary is for the Administration to consult with potential Senate opponents - honoring the "advice" part of the "advice and consent" role the Constitution gives the Senate - and agree to submit more moderate, consensus nominees. Just as the threat of a filibuster and the need for 60 votes for cloture often forces a bill's proponents to agree to compromises in order to gain passage, the need for 60 votes should persuade the Administration to stop sending such extremist and divisive nominations to the Senate. A Clinton Justice Department official acknowledged that administration's reluctance to nominate judges unless over 60 Senate votes for confirmation were expected. If that approach were taken now, it would end the filibusters.

If they actually get some Judges on the bench who take the Constitution seriously, they won’t have the power to over rule the peoples vote. Yes, I am dead serious about that statement. He rules by the Constitution, which seems to be a lost art. Just because some radical Judge set precedence and got away with it, doesn’t mean we have to be stuck forever with a poor decision.

Scalia is an extremist judge that rules by his personal opinions and not the constitution. He interprets the Constitution to his whims and doesn't take in consideration to precedent. Precedent is how the constitution was written to interpret laws. It's a series of checks and balances which was set-up by the framers of the constitution. To eschew precedent is to eschew the constitution.

 

[Squawker]

You make it seem that only Democrats pack judges into the seats. 55% of the federally appointed judges are by Republicans.

Democrats pick liberal Judges who tend not to be Constitutionalists. How’s that?

Moreover, REPUBLICANS HAVE FILIBUSTERED BEFORE (REMEMBER CLINTON?)

Now I know why I didn’t respond to your germane points before. Lol I really don’t recall a Republican filibuster of Judges during Clinton. I thought they were pretty weak and didn’t exert themselves enough. Two wrongs don’t make a right in any case. I was trying to confirm what you posted and found the following on activist Judges.

Disorder In The Court:
Activist Judges Threaten Justice
On October 5, 1999, the U.S. Senate voted 45-54 to reject the nomination of Ronnie White to the U.S. District Court in Missouri; this was the first time the Senate had defeated a Clinton -judicial nominee after 320 straight –confirmations.
(Snip)
Judicial selection was not intended to be such a high-stakes game. One of Alexander Hamilton’s arguments for the new Consti-tution in the 1700s was that the judiciary would be the “weakest” branch of government. By 1996, however, presidential -candidate Bob Dole said in a speech that -federal judges are a president’s “most profound legacy.”
In two centuries, the weakest branch has become a most profound legacy because judges have taken from the people control of the most significant issues that affect our -culture, communities and families.
(snip)
A judge’s most important task is inter-preting the law. Since the law (whether a statute, a regulation, or the Constitution) already exists, interpreting it is simply determining what it means. What does the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment prohibition on -“unreasonable” searches and seizures by police mean? What does the federal statute prohibiting discrimination based on -“disability” intend? The meaning of -indi-vidual words like these determines the outcome of cases and, therefore, determines how the government conducts itself, the rights of individuals, and the freedom of all Americans.
A restrained judge believes that the meaning of these words already exists, that the meaning came from the legislatures or the people who enacted those words into law in the first place, and the judge’s job is to find it. Activist judges, in contrast, pursue their own agendas and believe they can give those words any meaning they choose. And, remember, that many of these appointments are lifelong terms.
A restrained judge takes the law as he finds it, while the activist judge believes he can make it up as he goes along, usually as a way of reaching the results he wants.

You can’t deny we have too many “activists” Judges. If a special interest group wants to set a precedence they find a judge who with be sympathetic to their cause.



Source

 

[shuamort]

You can’t deny we have too many “activists” Judges. If a special interest group wants to set a precedence they find a judge who with be sympathetic to their cause.

And how are these special interest groups going to pass muster at a Supreme Court (state or federal) level?

As for filibustering, the Republicans did a lot of filibustering during the Clinton presidency, the problem for the Republicans was that the nominees got through in spite of the tactic. I found this interesting page from Senate.gov about the history of the filibuster including: The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

Of course, I don't believe in activist judges and bandying that term around, I think rulings as such are highly infrequent and that judges are apply the law and constitution. A lot of perceptions of activist judges happen around the 14th Amendment. I don't want to hijack your thread here (and if you want, I'll start a new one), but let's look at the 1st paragraph of the 14th Amendment.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What do life and liberty mean? How far should that stretch? Where should the line be drawn? And most importantly, who should be the ones to draw that line? And the US Government has been set up where it's up to the judicial branch to decide what the law meant and where the line has to be drawn.

 

[Squawker]

And how are these special interest groups going to pass muster at a Supreme Court (state or federal) level?

This is where activist judges use "precidence" here or abroad. If they can't find a loop hole in our constitution, they refer to world opinion.

The record for the longest individual speech goes to South Carolina's J. Strom Thurmond who filibustered for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957.

A Southern Democrat who later joined the Republican Party (who fought against slavery), after he fathered an out of wedlock child of African descent.

What do life and liberty mean?

Why don't you add pursuit of happiness then we can have the court involved in everything. If I want to screw my dog, they can rule that is unconstitutional to deny me the right to pursue what would make me happy.

 

[ShamMol]

Now I know why I didn’t respond to your germane points before. Lol I really don’t recall a Republican filibuster of Judges during Clinton. I thought they were pretty weak and didn’t exert themselves enough. Two wrongs don’t make a right in any case. I was trying to confirm what you posted and found the following on activist Judges.

No sqauwk, they did worse. What they did was not allow them to EVER come up for a vote even if they passed committee. What they did was provide them with hundreds of surveys that nobody before them had to answer (at least in that number) and they were delayed not for months, but for YEARS. If you want to know where I get this info, it is from personal knowledge. **** (not going to reveal relation, but I am related to her) is a judge and she was held up for 3 years, YEARS, before she was finally confirmed. Others were held up more (4 years, 2 years, etc, etc). That is the answer to that, and I think they did fillibuster once or twice.

But unforntunately, the Dems don't have the luxury of leading the senate, so they can't just delay the votes, so they turn to the option that the Republicans would use if they were not in pwer.

Oh, and on another note, the Senate can't do a thing about the Marbury precedence for rulings of the court because now it is well defined and frankly, they just wouldn't try because it would be too much of a check on the judicial system and thus would be ruled unconstitutional, lol.

 

[shuamort]

Oh, and on another note, the Senate can't do a thing about the Marbury precedence for rulings of the court because now it is well defined and frankly, they just wouldn't try because it would be too much of a check on the judicial system and thus would be ruled unconstitutional, lol.

Actually, congress did try to make a law that prevents courts from ruling on anything related to gay marriage.

 

[Squawker]

You might ignore the problem until it is too damn late. What will your world look like in 50 years? Our Constitution has been the ruling force in our history, and one of the reasons we have become the most successful country in the world. The ninth Circuit Court in Ca. is the most notorious, but not the only one with activist judges. If we abdicate too much power to the Courts, there isn’t much point to our constitution, or legislature for that matter.

Foreign Enemies Using the Supreme Court Against Us
CHRONWATCH.COM ^ | FEBRUARY 25, 2005 | CHRISTOPHER ADAMO
Posted on 02/25/2005 1:49:01 PM PST by CHARLITE
When Mexico’s Foreign Secretary, Luis Ernesto Derbez made his threats against Arizona on behalf of the illegal aliens invading that state, it was no coincidence that his first plan of attack would involve America’s courts.
Derbez thoroughly understands that Arizona’s new law resulted from a ballot initiative, Proposition 200, roundly supported by the voters. Thus it would be difficult to motivate the Arizona Legislature to act in a manner so blatantly in opposition to the will of the people.
So Derbez is focusing on the latest and greatest method of thwarting that popular will, and if successful he will have at his disposal an edict, or a series of edicts, from which American citizens have in recent years been denied any recourse. “Judicial Activism,” a concept abhorrently opposed to the founding principles of the country, has been established as the trump card of those who, in service to their own agenda, seek to countermand the Constitution and the American way of life.
It has been successfully used by this nation’s counterculture for decades. So it should come as no surprise that foreign entities are likewise now jumping on the bandwagon to further their own interests.
Moreover, Derbez is in a prime position to benefit from a new low to which the American judiciary has sunk in recent years. In the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, in which the United States Supreme Court struck all of America’s sodomy laws down, Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and O’Connor rationalized their abominable judgment based on the laws of other nations.
Justice Breyer has, in recent weeks, reiterated this absurd notion, seemingly oblivious to the fact that it is a direct violation of his oath of office, in which he vowed to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America.
Breyer and his like-minded cohorts on the nation’s high court have now essentially validated any and every regime on the planet, from the most orderly to the most corrupt and repressive. Who can doubt that the founders intended something entirely different when they endeavored to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” as stated in the Constitution?
Yet by their wholly inappropriate deference to “international law,” the justices also left the door wide open to a second line of attack by Derbez. In the event that he is unable to find an activist judge within America’s borders who will grant him the dominion over the people of Arizona that he seeks, he intends to move next to “international tribunals.” Had the Justices of the Supreme Court not endorsed the supposed legitimacy of such entities, Derbez would not be so well armed to pursue this course.
Another dark milestone on this road to the obliteration of the American way occurred recently in the state of New York. There, State Supreme Court Justice Doris Ling-Cohan ruled in favor of same-sex “marriage,” not on the basis of current law and constitutional principle, or even of the “emanations and umbras” tortured out of them by past activist judges to justify their often perverse ideologies.
Instead, Ling-Cohan essentially asserted that the Constitutional right to same-sex “marriage,” though mentioned nowhere in that document, is nonetheless “beyond question,” and proceeded to establish “law” on that basis alone.
The overwhelming majority of New Yorkers believe, like people across America, that marriage can only be defined as being between one man and one woman. But despite this, a liberal judge has simply taken it upon herself to declare otherwise, and to institute her beliefs in place of former laws that had been firmly established on time-honored truths.
Source

 

[shuamort]

You might ignore the problem until it is too damn late. What will your world look like in 50 years? Our Constitution has been the ruling force in our history, and one of the reasons we have become the most successful country in the world. The ninth Circuit Court in Ca. is the most notorious, but not the only one with activist judges. If we abdicate too much power to the Courts, there isn’t much point to our constitution, or legislature for that matter.

I don't see that there is a problem. I see the wonderful world of checks and balances.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

If you want, we can go case by case into the last 200 years of the Supreme Court's decision on Constitutional Law and I can show you how many precedents have been set that are based on the Constitution and decided by Judicial Fiats. The balance is evident in my quote up there from the US Supreme Court's website. That there is the balance to the check. If the people believe that a Supreme Court ruling isn't kosher, they can create a constitutional amendment or create new legislative action that trumps it.

As for your quote above of the article, there are some many inaccuracies, false allegations, omissions, and plain ignorant statements that it'd be fruitless to tackle. (Not taking the New York state constitution into consideration is the first glaring problem of the article).