Wednesday, September 21, 2005
Liberals Who Understand 'Judicial Activism' vs. Those Who Don't
Hat tip, John Rabe.
So the New York Times defines judicial activism as declaring a law to be unconstitutional. A conservative would define it as making stuff up based on your own predilictions.
There are smart people at the New York Times. Do they understand the issue and are misrepresenting the term? Or do they fail to understand? Maybe this is why I don't read the newspaper of record and why they had to lay off some employees.
Hat tip, John Rabe.
Thus, The New York Times prissily informed its readers: "There is a misconception that so-called activist judges who 'legislate from the bench' are invariably liberal. In fact, conservative judges can be even more eager to overrule decisions made by elected officials."
That statement has as much intellectual content as saying: "There is a misconception that so-called activist judges who 'legislate from the bench' are invariably liberal. In fact, conservative judges can be even more eager to play tennis."
The very act of redefining "judicial activism" to mean invalidating any law passed by elected officials is precisely the sort of Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense we're talking about. Liberal judges redefine the Constitution's silence on abortion to mean "abortion is a precious constitutional right." Liberal flacks in the media redefine judicial activism to mean "striking down laws."
The Times' definition isn't even coherent. If it were "judicial activism" to strike down laws — any laws, ever — there would be no point to having a Supreme Court. We could just have some idiot functionary, like Joe Wilson, rubber-stamping whatever the other parts of government do.
So the New York Times defines judicial activism as declaring a law to be unconstitutional. A conservative would define it as making stuff up based on your own predilictions.
There are smart people at the New York Times. Do they understand the issue and are misrepresenting the term? Or do they fail to understand? Maybe this is why I don't read the newspaper of record and why they had to lay off some employees.
Comments:
<< Home
I'm quite sure that conservatives do not know the difference. In fact, I'm quite positive that when conservatives complain about "activist judges," they are really just complaining about judges who disagree with their politics. If we had more "activist judges" who were conservatives, none of you would be bitching about it.
Hwang
Hwang
# posted by 
: 4:25 PM
: 4:25 PM
That is true for some conservatives, but for those who follow it closely, I think they are well aware of the difference. Unlike the New York Times.
Geoff, first off, I think it is clear that you do not follow it closely. Following it closely is not watching FOX news, reading conservative columnists, and occassionally reading the NY Times when someone from the right points out something ridiculous they've done. Secondly, considering how partisan your arguments always are, I have no doubt whatsoever believing that if these "activist judges" were all conservative, you yourself would have no problem with them.
You have simply convinced yourself, or rather the right has convinced you, that it is only the left judges who are "activist" while the judges on the right are simply trying to pretect the ideals of the Constitution. Just admit what it is that you want and stop spewing partisan rhetoric. You want conservative judges, period.
Post a Comment
You have simply convinced yourself, or rather the right has convinced you, that it is only the left judges who are "activist" while the judges on the right are simply trying to pretect the ideals of the Constitution. Just admit what it is that you want and stop spewing partisan rhetoric. You want conservative judges, period.
# posted by : 7:47 PM
: 7:47 PM << Home
