Actually, "activist judge" is quite specific, and it has nothing to do with agreement of disagreement. It refers to a judge who substitutes judicial WILL for judicial JUDGMENT.
The early concern about this is brought out most clearly in the "Federalist Papers" No. 78, May 28, 1788 (attributed to Alexander Hamilton), Paragraph 16. The point made there is that a judge may adjudicate between 2 conflicting laws of equal authority, or between 2 conflicting authorities, but must NEVER make a determination of the will, rights, or character of the people.
The legislative expression of the will of the people is the only acceptable government expression thereof, and must never be abrogated by the judiciary. The judiciary has no jurisdiction to declare "rights" nor to prevent government infringement on the same. The judiciary, legitimately, may only DECIDE points of law.
The broadcast flag decision was a determination that Congress had not granted the requisite authority to the FCC to enforce their ruling (the FCC doesn't make laws, only Congress does that, they make rules that are enforced by Congressionally granted authority). The Massachusetts SJC ruling on "gay marriage" declared a new "right", created a new "class" of persons, and directed the legislature how to implement their "decision". I make no comment, here, on the question of "gay rights", but the actions of that court were unequivocally beyond their granted authority, and as such represent the worst attributes of "activist judges".
Other excellent commentaries on this topic include the recent dissenting opinions written by Justice Scalia in "Lawrence v. Texas", No. 02-102 and "Roper v. Simmons", No. 03-633.
Justice Scalia's CSPAN speech is transcribed at (
http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legal_issues/legal_updates/us_supreme_court/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm), this is an excellent elucidation of the proper role of the judiciary
There is a Q&A about judicial activism at (
http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/government/courts/supreme/a0036199.cfm)
==Joseph++
Patrick Fleming, EA wrote:
>
>
> Erik Bixby wrote:
>
>>> The term activist judges is generally used
>>>derogatorily applied when one disagrees with their decision. I fail
>>>to see how striking down the broadcast flag is A Bad Thing for Linux
>>>or F/OSS in general. At any rate, I suppose I've rambled enough...
>
>
> Except the very concept of "activist judges" is those that don't toe the
> government's line.
> "Activist judges" have said the the government can't infringe on the
> peoples' rights to marry someone of the same sex, the government can't
> infringe on the ability to record a broadcast show. No one uses the term
> "activist judges" when they support the government's attempts to reduce
> our freedoms only when they tell the government it can't infringe more
> than it has.
> My $.02.
- ---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)