Filed under: Author - ACG,Politics | Tags: Empathy, Judicial activism, Law, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court
Congratulations to the Democrats for making this important point:
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-Rhode Island, quoted CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin’s statement that “in every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth chief justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff.”
“And is it a coincidence that this pattern, to continue Toobin’s quote, has served the interests and reflected the values of the contemporary Republican Party?” Whitehouse said. “Some coincidence.”
It’s about damn time. For context on this point, turn to our series on the real meaning of judicial activism and Judge Sotomayor.
12 Comments so far
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
This doesn’t tell me anything. Had there been details of each case presented and comments from the Chief included as to why he ruled that way, it might mean something. This is nothing more than a cheep political stunt.
Comment by Jay July 14, 2009 @ 8:57 amYou’re right, this is a quote, and not a research article on each decision.
But there are legitimate concerns from those on the left, that there is too much favor towards the executive branch and corporations and against worker rights, privacy rights, oversight, etc…which I think this quote illustrates.
Comment by Oneiroi July 14, 2009 @ 9:11 amThanks for the reply. Perhaps valid concerns given the record but they should be validated with the facts and examples that support the concern. I don’t see where anything was actually illustrated. Just conjecture.
Comment by Jay July 14, 2009 @ 10:08 amThat’s a strange comment to make, Jay, because I have yet to hear a Republican ever speak intelligently about what “judicial activism” even means. Can THEY cite to any cases or concerns, or is it just “I don’t like the way Roe came out!!”? That, obviously, isn’t enough!
As for your questions, if you search this blog (feature on the left sidebar) for “Chief Justice Roberts” you’ll probably get about a billion hits, half of which would be on point :)
Comment by ACG July 14, 2009 @ 11:00 amSo your justification for the concern is that Republicans haven’t defined the meaning of judicial activism? Why not outline the concern specifically using examples rather than just make accusations. That would make this worth reading. Otherwise it comes across as whining and dart throwing without any basis in fact. The record of the Chief Justice raises the concern but leaving it at that proves nothing. No proof convinces no one.
Comment by Jay July 14, 2009 @ 11:34 amAs to your assertion that Republicans have yet to define judicial activism, I can only conclude that you don’t listen to Republicans or Conservatives at all. They have emphasized and defined this point at nausiem over the years. Simply put, activist from the bench try to make new laws with their decisions rather than following the constitution and interpreting the law as it exists and how that applies to the facts of each case. Laws are up to the legislative branch who represent the people of this country to make, not the judges.
Its not up to judges to say that the law should be different in deciding a case. They are there to simply apply it.
“Laws are up to the legislative branch who represent the people of this country to make, not the judges.”
Are you saying that any judge who deems a law unconstitutional using an accepted theory of legal interpretation is an activist judge?
Comment by Igor July 14, 2009 @ 11:42 amNot sure what your definition is of “Accepted Theory”. Accepted by whom?
Comment by Jay July 14, 2009 @ 11:55 amNevertheless, the point of this discussion from the beginning had to do with no facts to back up concern with Roberts. I am not going to debate activism versus constructionism with you. They have been well defined. I am simply pointing out that the original concern was not backed up. So it is empty.
““Accepted Theory”. Accepted by whom?” – accepted by legal scholars and previous judges in interpreting a particular law and the constitution. Some examples include literal interpretations, legislative or founding intent, cannons of construction, etc. That may vary depending on personal philosophy (read oriiginalist), but surely deviation from that does not make one an activist judge?
You state, “activist from the bench try to make new laws with their decisions rather than following the constitution and interpreting the law as it exists and how that applies to the facts of each case.” But if the judge follows different methods of statutory construction in interpreting the law how does it make one an activist judge?
It seems to me, and that is ACG’s main point, that the definition of an “activist judge” you and many others proposed ad nauseum is not a very useful one as it seems to include any judge who reaches a result you don’t like by overturning an existing law.
Comment by Igor July 14, 2009 @ 12:17 pmRightio Igor. And Jay – read
http://acandidworld.net/tag/judicial-activism/
Comment by ACG July 14, 2009 @ 12:19 pmPure PAP. Nothing to do with what I or anyone else likes or doesn’t like. Another unfounded assertion. It has to do with whether its constitutional or not or is the judge using some other basis for their decision. Any judge who uses some other basis for their decision outside of the law is an activist. In other words, they are going outside of their oath as a judge and their purpose as a judge. Their role is not to overturn laws unless those laws are deemed unconsititutional by the Supreme Court. Their job is to uphold the laws established by the legislature.
Comment by Jay July 14, 2009 @ 12:38 pmIt seems to me that it is you who doesn’t like the definition of what a judge is supposed to do and what their role is.
“Their role is not to overturn laws unless those laws are deemed unconsititutional (sic) by the Supreme Court. Their job is to uphold the laws established by the legislature.”
I am not sure what you mean and your statement seems a bit contradictory. Are you referring to a judge having to follow higher court precedent (which they almost always do)? Of course, there are instances where no higher authority has addressed a particular issue. Moreover, defining judicial role as that having to uphold legislative acts completely undermines Judiciary’s role in checking and balancing the other two branches.
“Their role is not to overturn laws unless those laws are deemed unconsititutional (sic) by the Supreme Court.” Seems to be a tautology unless you are referring to the power of precedent.
Comment by Igor July 14, 2009 @ 1:47 pm“Their role is not to overturn laws unless those laws are deemed unconsititutional (sic) by the Supreme Court. Their job is to uphold the laws established by the legislature.”
It’s a strange patriot that disclaims America’s greatest contribution to democratic/separation of powers theory – judicial review – which was dreamed up and clearly supported by the Founders themselves.
Comment by ACG July 14, 2009 @ 1:50 pm