A SCOTUS Opening

[BmorePat87]

(09-22-2020, 10:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: No problem. I spend way more time than I should looking at these sorts of things. Vas mentioned Citizens United, which is one more recent and prominent example of conservative "judicial activism," but I honestly don't get behind the term much, either. I use it almost primarily in mockery or in an effort to point out that the term is like Easterbrook points out, just used when we don't agree with a decision.

I use this in class and then quote this article:

Quote:Recent events have brought the term "activist judge" to the forefront of American politics, but some judicial experts say they believe the label may be nothing more than a smokescreen to taint members of the court.
"There is no such thing as an activist judge," said FOX News senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano, who served as a New Jersey superior court judge from 1987 to 1995.
"An activist judge is one whose ruling you disagree with. And if you agree with what the judge has done, you call them heroic and intelligent and honest. If you disagree with them, you call them activists."
Napolitano said the definition of "activist judge" differs from the right to the left side of the political spectrum.
"To conservatives, activist judges are those who permit or compel activity in which the opinion of the conservatives can only be done in the legislative branch," he said. "To liberals, activist judges are judges who prevent the government from doing things that the Legislature wants to do."
The dictionary defines an "activist" as someone who fights in support of or in opposition to one side of a controversial issue.
But members from both sides of the political aisle have been applying the label of "activist judge" to jurists who are believed to be applying their own ideological beliefs to their rulings, rather than adhering to established law.