Judicial Activism: An Abuse of Power
Posted by: Jaime Huff | 06/25/2008 6:08 PM
Last month, Senator John McCain gave a speech delineating his judicial philosophy. In that speech, the presidential hopeful addressed the evils of judicial activism, stating that "every federal court should be a refuge from abuses of power, and not the source." It's the best speech I'd ever heard him give.
Judicial activism is when courts go beyond mere interpretation of law, and instead create law, substituting their own political opinions for the elected legislature. The most recent example of this abuse right here in California.
I agree with the Senator that judicial activism, in all its forms, must be curbed. Activism should not be exercised by judges enjoying a lifetime of tenure, but by an elected body who is vulnerable to eviction from office. Federal judges have been issuing rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Because their tenure doesn't end until their pulse does, these judges show little regard for the authority of elected bodies, and consequently, for the will of the people.
True activists seek to make their case democratically by influencing voters that their cause is right. Dissimilarly, activist judges practice a different method, sparing themselves the hassle of the legislative process.
Senator McCain has made clear that the proper role of the judiciary is one of the defining issues of the 2008 presidential election. He stated that the remedy available to restore order in our courts is to find, nominate, and confirm the right judges. Senator McCain has committed himself to select justices who have an established record of judicial restraint. As the most overlooked, yet arguably the most powerful branch of government, the courts must be run by those who are unwavering in their role as interpreter, not legislator. I am glad the Republican nominee sees this issue as a serious one, and is dedicated to nominating justices who will act with humility and self-control.
Our judicial system can be a fair tool for adjudication when those who are charged with its operation do so with integrity for the process of law. The system gives every citizen the ability to redress grievances and affirm rights. When judicial restraint is followed, our justice system lives up to its name, and provides real justice.
Judicial activism is when courts go beyond mere interpretation of law, and instead create law, substituting their own political opinions for the elected legislature. The most recent example of this abuse right here in California.
I agree with the Senator that judicial activism, in all its forms, must be curbed. Activism should not be exercised by judges enjoying a lifetime of tenure, but by an elected body who is vulnerable to eviction from office. Federal judges have been issuing rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Because their tenure doesn't end until their pulse does, these judges show little regard for the authority of elected bodies, and consequently, for the will of the people.
True activists seek to make their case democratically by influencing voters that their cause is right. Dissimilarly, activist judges practice a different method, sparing themselves the hassle of the legislative process.
Senator McCain has made clear that the proper role of the judiciary is one of the defining issues of the 2008 presidential election. He stated that the remedy available to restore order in our courts is to find, nominate, and confirm the right judges. Senator McCain has committed himself to select justices who have an established record of judicial restraint. As the most overlooked, yet arguably the most powerful branch of government, the courts must be run by those who are unwavering in their role as interpreter, not legislator. I am glad the Republican nominee sees this issue as a serious one, and is dedicated to nominating justices who will act with humility and self-control.
Our judicial system can be a fair tool for adjudication when those who are charged with its operation do so with integrity for the process of law. The system gives every citizen the ability to redress grievances and affirm rights. When judicial restraint is followed, our justice system lives up to its name, and provides real justice.
AMEN. Conservatives do not want to compromise on principles. They would rather stay home than vote for the...
http://www.alliancealert.org/2008/20080620.pdfKevin Norte, a research attorney for the Los Angeles Superior Court was the first legal analyst to publish articles on the "revision versus amendment" position since the Supreme Court's historic ruling on May 15, 2008 in the In re Marriage Cases (2008) 43 Cal.4th 757. Norte's articles were published on May 21, 2008 and June 17, 2008 editions of the Metropolitan News-Enterprise. Norte has commented on the writ matter entitled BENNETT v. BOWEN (HOLLINGWORTH) S165420 filed on June 20, 2008 which seeks to remove the "Limit on Marriage" initiative from the November ballot. The Court has requested that the oppositions be filed by June 30th and the reply by July 10 and the Legal Analyst believes the Court, at a minimum, will issue an alternative writ and a stay removing the initiative from the November ballot pending a determination or, he surmises that the Court may even break tradition and hear the matter in July or August even though the Court is not traditionally in session during those months. Norte believes the measure will eventually be removed from the ballot and the Court will further expand the legal precedent by setting forth the criteria for what can and what cannot be on a voter initiative ballot in California The Superior Court research attorney noted that the "right to marry" itself is not expressed in the California Constitution but is implied by legal precedents. To accept any amendments limiting the right to marry would open the doors to limit an implied constitutional right by amendment and not revision. Furthermore, Norte even pointed out, prisoners under Legislature v. Yu (1991) 54 Cal.3d 492 would have more rights than same gender couples if taken to an illogical extreme. The Legal Analyst expressed the opinion that the the problem with the Limit on Marriage proponents' position is that in a constitutional democracy, equal protection and fundamental rights cannot be put to a popular vote. While not raised in his articles, Norte sees a similarity between the "Limit on Marriage" initiative and the City of Riverside anti-gay initiative that was removed from the ballot because it violated the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (Citizens For Responsible Behavior v. Superior Court (1991) 1 cal.App.4th 1013.) Otherwise if permitted, Norte opines, "the people could adopt an initiative barring Jehovah's Witnesses from doing door-to-door proselytizing, or barring Muslim girls from wearing headscarves in public schools. This initiative raises a whole host of issues." In Norte's most recent article he stated, "One may wonder if an initiative that was submitted to the Secretary of State and its language approved by the Attorney General, and reviewed by the Legislative Analyst and the Director of Finance and stated that the initiative “would have no fiscal effect on state or local governments is valid due to the findings of the Supreme Court subsequent to the petition being circulated. Prior to the case it was true there would be no change to the manner in which marriages are currently recognized by the state” was valid. Subsequent, however, to its circulation but prior to its certification, the California Supreme Court changed the law. Based upon my research, there is no precedent on this issue in California . However, to seek a pre-election review of the initiative, there appears to be only one viable option. That would be a challenge based upon the impropriety of the voter initiative itself."
cabana republicana...get a new issue please.
The courts have been used as an activist tool since the beginning of U.S. history.
Recent abuses of court authority in California include subverting the will of the voters in immigration reform (Prop 187) by Judge Marrianne Pfealzer, the California Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriage in opposition to 60 percent of the voters, and Workers Comp commissioners who continue to give benefits to workers who do not have a right to live or work in the United States.
Electing candidates who share conservative values is the only method for implementing judicial reform.