Comments on: “Activist Judges”: Surprising No-One, Palin Doesn’t Get It

By: Sarah Palin: Culture Warrior (Redux) « Submitted to a Candid World

Sarah Palin: Culture Warrior (Redux) « Submitted to a Candid World — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 02:02:51 +0000

[...] from the old canard about “activist judges,” Sarah Palin is flat-out wrong about who occupies the “middle ground” on abortion. Palin [...]

By: Join or Die: PUMAs Misrepresent the State of the Law « Submitted to a Candid World

Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:50:47 +0000

[...] construction of the Constitution, and no activist judges.” McCain/Palin’s frequent ramblings about “activist judges” and “strict construction” is an invocation of a manner of constitutional interpretation [...]

By: thomascwaters.com » Activist Judges and the Redefinition of Marriage

thomascwaters.com » Activist Judges and the Redefinition of Marriage — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:33:54 +0000

[...] http://www.acandidworld.net/2008/10/06/activist-judges-surprising-no-one-palin-doesnt-get-it/ [...]

By: Fear & Lying in “Real” Virginia: Republican Flyers Misstate Obama’s Record

Mon, 03 Nov 2008 19:32:03 +0000

[...] typical conservative ramblings about the “activist judiciary,” the Supreme Court is (1) meant, to a certain extent, to be socially “activist” and; (2) has been significantly more “activist” during the tenure of Chief Justice [...]

By: Join or Die: PUMAs Misrepresent the State of the Law

Join or Die: PUMAs Misrepresent the State of the Law — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:26:57 +0000

By: Sarah Palin: Culture Warrior (Redux)

Sarah Palin: Culture Warrior (Redux) — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 11:53:36 +0000

[...] from the old canard about “activist judges,” Sarah Palin is flat-out wrong about who occupies the “middle ground” on abortion. Palin [...]

By: Carnival of the Liberals - Race to the Bottom « Clashing Culture

Carnival of the Liberals - Race to the Bottom « Clashing Culture — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:35:38 +0000

[...] the Constitution is only paper without an independent guardian branch of government. Ames presents Activist Judges?: Surprising No-One, Palin Doesnt Get It posted at Submitted to a Candid [...]

By: Oldfart

Oldfart — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:37:37 +0000

I just find it amazing that a guy who consistently writes signing statements that outline his intent to avoid or evade following the law as passed by Congress should have the balls to suggest that judges “follow the written law”. Does that have anything to do with accepting only a literal translation of the BIble? Is it related?

By: Gotchaye

Gotchaye — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:36:04 +0000

You’re probably right that Brown is an easy case mostly because it’s well behind us, but I think a distinction can be made between the sort of activism on display in Brown and in Roe. With Brown, the justices didn’t really look at the Constitution as meaning something other than what most took it for; instead, they concluded that the world was not what many took it for. I would imagine that ‘equal protection’ is pretty clear; what was at issue was whether separate was or was not equal, and the case largely hinged on demonstrations of real harm to blacks from segregated facilities. There might have been people disingenuously insisting that the 14th didn’t require that the government not privilege some students above others, etc, but I imagine that the underlying motive of most detractors was just a desire to keep blacks down, and that they didn’t really care at all about what the Constitution had to say on the matter (it’s not like there was a tremendous amount of respect for the federal government in the South around then). With Roe, I think it’s much more possible for reasonable people to disagree about whether or not the decision is good law (as you’ve previously acknowledged, it would hardly be good law if fetuses were, in fact, persons).

By: Ames

Ames — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 05:14:13 +0000

That’s fair; the point, though, is that Brown was to a certain extent “personal moralizing” in the sense that it went in contravention of settled public opinion of what the Constitution meant. Avoiding moralizing against their interests is what Palin & co. really mean, and it’s just a way of making a political agenda seem intellectually appealing when it really isn’t.