Comments on: In Praise of Judicial Activism http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/in-praise-of-judicial-activism.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Samuel Skinner http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/in-praise-of-judicial-activism.html#comment-37742 Samuel Skinner Wed, 13 Aug 2008 03:23:14 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=800#comment-37742 Remember- it is only judicial activism when the lefties do it- when the supreme court installs a president it is "rule of law". Remember- it is only judicial activism when the lefties do it- when the supreme court installs a president it is "rule of law".

]]> By: LindaJoy http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/in-praise-of-judicial-activism.html#comment-37736 LindaJoy Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:08:54 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=800#comment-37736 Ingersoll's Revenge- Rep. Randy Forbes is getting impatient with House Res. 888 sitting so long in committe, so he had a group take some time on the floor of the House to voice their support (Our Rich History of Faith- June 17, 2008) for about an hour. Those who stood up in support gave little 5 minute speeches that were also chock full of historical errors! I've been researching them. Rep. Robin Hayes from NC gave a whopper of a quote supposedly from George Washington that I confimed with the GW Papers foundation is a 19th century faity tale. I intend to send him a letter. I don't see your rep as one of the speakers. A Congressman Carter from VA got so excited during his oratory that he proclaimed, "The Lord Jesus Christ reigns in the capital city of the United States of American". These guys don't give up, so keep your eye on House Res. 888. Ingersoll's Revenge- Rep. Randy Forbes is getting impatient with House Res. 888 sitting so long in committe, so he had a group take some time on the floor of the House to voice their support (Our Rich History of Faith- June 17, 2008) for about an hour. Those who stood up in support gave little 5 minute speeches that were also chock full of historical errors! I've been researching them. Rep. Robin Hayes from NC gave a whopper of a quote supposedly from George Washington that I confimed with the GW Papers foundation is a 19th century faity tale. I intend to send him a letter. I don't see your rep as one of the speakers. A Congressman Carter from VA got so excited during his oratory that he proclaimed, "The Lord Jesus Christ reigns in the capital city of the United States of American". These guys don't give up, so keep your eye on House Res. 888.

]]> By: random guy http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/in-praise-of-judicial-activism.html#comment-37735 random guy Tue, 12 Aug 2008 19:48:46 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=800#comment-37735 Since its been mentioned, I always thought the state's rights argument was another kind of tyranny of the majority. It just replaces a national majority with a localized one. Like the idea that segregation should have been a state issue, specifically because local majorities could overrule the rights of a minority. They didn't want it becoming a federal issue because they didn't give a damn about New York they just wanted to make sure they didn't have to share the bus with the black people back in Mississippi. Thats one of the reasons I can't understand the courts reversal on the death penalty issue. I don't understand how they think its okay for one state to put someone to death if it wants too, but not for another. I understand that its up to the states themselves to decide. I just find it horrific that a crime in Texas could get you killed whereas the same crime somewhere else wouldn't, it seems like a gross miscarriage of justice to let some states murder citizens with the only real condition being how much the local populace wants to see them dead. Since its been mentioned, I always thought the state's rights argument was another kind of tyranny of the majority. It just replaces a national majority with a localized one. Like the idea that segregation should have been a state issue, specifically because local majorities could overrule the rights of a minority. They didn't want it becoming a federal issue because they didn't give a damn about New York they just wanted to make sure they didn't have to share the bus with the black people back in Mississippi.

Thats one of the reasons I can't understand the courts reversal on the death penalty issue. I don't understand how they think its okay for one state to put someone to death if it wants too, but not for another. I understand that its up to the states themselves to decide. I just find it horrific that a crime in Texas could get you killed whereas the same crime somewhere else wouldn't, it seems like a gross miscarriage of justice to let some states murder citizens with the only real condition being how much the local populace wants to see them dead.

]]> By: Ingersoll's Revenge http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/in-praise-of-judicial-activism.html#comment-37732 Ingersoll's Revenge Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:57:09 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=800#comment-37732 <blockquote>Right now it's in the form of House Res. 888 which uses the distortion and lying about our history tact to push Christianity in.</blockquote> Ugh. Don't get me started on H. Res. 888. The fact (and it's been reiterated here countless times) that a nation full of Christians is <i>not</i> a Christian nation notwithstanding, H. Res. 888 contains a stunning amount of factual errors regarding the multiple "whereas"es, showing nothing but a complete disdain for historical accuracy and study. I won't go into detail about them here, as you can look them up on any number of websites by simply running a Google search. My congressman, Pat Tiberi (R-OH), is a supporter of the resolution, and I've written to him numerous times to remove his name from the list of supporters. I've cited the countless factual errors and reminded him that, if nothing else, tacking his name onto that list makes him look like an idiot in the eyes of anyone who has even a smidgen of knowledge about U.S. History (though I used much more subtle language than that). Obviously, I've never gotten a reply.

Right now it's in the form of House Res. 888 which uses the distortion and lying about our history tact to push Christianity in.

Ugh. Don't get me started on H. Res. 888.

The fact (and it's been reiterated here countless times) that a nation full of Christians is not a Christian nation notwithstanding, H. Res. 888 contains a stunning amount of factual errors regarding the multiple "whereas"es, showing nothing but a complete disdain for historical accuracy and study. I won't go into detail about them here, as you can look them up on any number of websites by simply running a Google search.

My congressman, Pat Tiberi (R-OH), is a supporter of the resolution, and I've written to him numerous times to remove his name from the list of supporters. I've cited the countless factual errors and reminded him that, if nothing else, tacking his name onto that list makes him look like an idiot in the eyes of anyone who has even a smidgen of knowledge about U.S. History (though I used much more subtle language than that).

Obviously, I've never gotten a reply.

]]> By: the chaplain http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/in-praise-of-judicial-activism.html#comment-37729 the chaplain Tue, 12 Aug 2008 02:22:55 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=800#comment-37729 Excellent post. As far as I'm concerned, all the politicians' prattle about "judicial activism" is hot air. What they are really protesting are jurists who disagree with them. They're perfectly content, however, to accept the decisions of jurists who agree with them. Excellent post. As far as I'm concerned, all the politicians' prattle about "judicial activism" is hot air. What they are really protesting are jurists who disagree with them. They're perfectly content, however, to accept the decisions of jurists who agree with them.

]]> By: Nurse Ingrid http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/in-praise-of-judicial-activism.html#comment-37728 Nurse Ingrid Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:52:40 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=800#comment-37728 To me, the phrase "activist judges" is just like the phrase "states' rights," in that I never hear anyone use it unless they're advocating something I find utterly repugnant. And hey, where is the "states' rights" crowd when it's time to stand up for the state of California's right to legalize same sex marriage? Oh, right, they're trying to amend the federal Constitution so we can't. To me, the phrase "activist judges" is just like the phrase "states' rights," in that I never hear anyone use it unless they're advocating something I find utterly repugnant.

And hey, where is the "states' rights" crowd when it's time to stand up for the state of California's right to legalize same sex marriage? Oh, right, they're trying to amend the federal Constitution so we can't.

]]> By: Chris Swanson http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/in-praise-of-judicial-activism.html#comment-37726 Chris Swanson Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:44:22 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=800#comment-37726 Another great post! The "activist judges" thing has really been irritating the hell out of me over the years. Check out <em>The Appeal</em> by John Grisham for some insight into how the conservatives want things to be. Another great post! The "activist judges" thing has really been irritating the hell out of me over the years. Check out The Appeal by John Grisham for some insight into how the conservatives want things to be.

]]> By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/in-praise-of-judicial-activism.html#comment-37725 Ebonmuse Mon, 11 Aug 2008 23:04:58 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=800#comment-37725 David D.G.: When it comes to the courts safeguarding liberty, I do consider <i>Roe v. Wade</i> and, especially, <i>Lawrence v. Texas</i> to be court decisions on a par with anything I've discussed here. Both of them, especially the latter, established that there is indeed such a thing as a constitutional right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary state intervention. I think the implications of that are going to be huge. The thing is, most of the right-wing pundits who complain about judicial activism fiercely disagree with both those decisions, so to them, those decisions wouldn't serve as very persuasive examples of why the judicial branch is needed. I sought to list the decisions which established liberties that even conservatives value, the better to punch holes in the argument that the courts are unneeded usurpers of Americans' rights. David D.G.: When it comes to the courts safeguarding liberty, I do consider Roe v. Wade and, especially, Lawrence v. Texas to be court decisions on a par with anything I've discussed here. Both of them, especially the latter, established that there is indeed such a thing as a constitutional right to privacy and freedom from arbitrary state intervention. I think the implications of that are going to be huge.

The thing is, most of the right-wing pundits who complain about judicial activism fiercely disagree with both those decisions, so to them, those decisions wouldn't serve as very persuasive examples of why the judicial branch is needed. I sought to list the decisions which established liberties that even conservatives value, the better to punch holes in the argument that the courts are unneeded usurpers of Americans' rights.

]]> By: WayneC http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/in-praise-of-judicial-activism.html#comment-37721 WayneC Mon, 11 Aug 2008 21:09:03 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=800#comment-37721 After a recent week on jury duty, I happened to stumble across the great power of "jury nullification." A dangerous term, because just mentioning it within earshot of the courthouse can get you a contempt of court charge in two seconds flat. However, a lot of the laws that were eventually nullified by "activist" judges (shouldn't they all be?) were thrown out multiple times by intelligent juries before the courts or the Congress realized their injustice. Although all the judicial rulings on jury nullification have upheld this as a right of all juries, many state rulings have also made it criminal for judges, defense attorneys, or prosecutors to mention such heresy in court. Even mentioning the term in the jury room during deliberations can be used as a basis for the judge to call a mistrial. One brave lady in Arizona got word through a pamphlet to the jury in her son's drug trial about jury nullification, and was rewarded for her efforts by being charged with obstruction of justice and jury tampering. However, the charges were soon dropped, probably because the prosecutors couldn't think of any way to try her without giving the jury hearing her case a copy of the jury nullification booklet! Still, any jury has the power to completely ignore written laws or court proceedings if they believe that justice will not be done by convicting someone of minor drug possession, etc. <strong>Juries can disregard the hollow "oath" they give at the beginning of jury service, the judge's instructions about the law, and even solid, iron-clad evidence if they believe that justice would not be served in a conviction.</strong> There are many great expansions of the idea of jury nullification at Web sites such as http://www.fija.org and http://www.caught.net/juror.htm. Sadly, with my week of jury duty we saw no cases, with every defendant making a plea-bargain. I was impressed, though, that one of the two judges who instructed us did say, "I don't want anyone innocent of a crime to plead 'guilty' in my courtroom." I hadn't expected to hear that from any jurist, and it gave me a little hope that maybe a small amount justice may be meted out now and then in our county courtrooms. After a recent week on jury duty, I happened to stumble across the great power of "jury nullification." A dangerous term, because just mentioning it within earshot of the courthouse can get you a contempt of court charge in two seconds flat. However, a lot of the laws that were eventually nullified by "activist" judges (shouldn't they all be?) were thrown out multiple times by intelligent juries before the courts or the Congress realized their injustice. Although all the judicial rulings on jury nullification have upheld this as a right of all juries, many state rulings have also made it criminal for judges, defense attorneys, or prosecutors to mention such heresy in court. Even mentioning the term in the jury room during deliberations can be used as a basis for the judge to call a mistrial.

One brave lady in Arizona got word through a pamphlet to the jury in her son's drug trial about jury nullification, and was rewarded for her efforts by being charged with obstruction of justice and jury tampering. However, the charges were soon dropped, probably because the prosecutors couldn't think of any way to try her without giving the jury hearing her case a copy of the jury nullification booklet!

Still, any jury has the power to completely ignore written laws or court proceedings if they believe that justice will not be done by convicting someone of minor drug possession, etc. Juries can disregard the hollow "oath" they give at the beginning of jury service, the judge's instructions about the law, and even solid, iron-clad evidence if they believe that justice would not be served in a conviction.

There are many great expansions of the idea of jury nullification at Web sites such as http://www.fija.org and http://www.caught.net/juror.htm.

Sadly, with my week of jury duty we saw no cases, with every defendant making a plea-bargain. I was impressed, though, that one of the two judges who instructed us did say, "I don't want anyone innocent of a crime to plead 'guilty' in my courtroom." I hadn't expected to hear that from any jurist, and it gave me a little hope that maybe a small amount justice may be meted out now and then in our county courtrooms.

]]> By: LindaJoy http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/in-praise-of-judicial-activism.html#comment-37719 LindaJoy Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:08:56 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=800#comment-37719 A major proof that the Constitution was written as a secular document is found in the writings of strict religionists of the times who were appalled that God and Jesus weren't mentioned in the preamble. A group of them wrote to Washington about it and he put them off very diplomatically. The real "miracle" in Philadelphia that summer at the Constitutional Convention was that a group of mostly religious men managed to step back and write something so secular. There were state constitutions and colony charters all around them that smacked of theocracy and Christian favoritism and they rejected all those models (VA being the only good model at that time). The religionists did not give up after the Constitution. There was a major push again in the late 1800's to put Jesus in the preamble, but it failed. So every so many years, we get this push again. Right now it's in the form of House Res. 888 which uses the distortion and lying about our history tact to push Christianity in. It's sitting in committee, but if it comes out, the sponsors hope to pass it and then use Congressional approval to make it legitimate to push these lies into our school curriculums. They never give up. A major proof that the Constitution was written as a secular document is found in the writings of strict religionists of the times who were appalled that God and Jesus weren't mentioned in the preamble. A group of them wrote to Washington about it and he put them off very diplomatically. The real "miracle" in Philadelphia that summer at the Constitutional Convention was that a group of mostly religious men managed to step back and write something so secular. There were state constitutions and colony charters all around them that smacked of theocracy and Christian favoritism and they rejected all those models (VA being the only good model at that time).

The religionists did not give up after the Constitution. There was a major push again in the late 1800's to put Jesus in the preamble, but it failed. So every so many years, we get this push again. Right now it's in the form of House Res. 888 which uses the distortion and lying about our history tact to push Christianity in. It's sitting in committee, but if it comes out, the sponsors hope to pass it and then use Congressional approval to make it legitimate to push these lies into our school curriculums. They never give up.

]]> By: YAAB http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/in-praise-of-judicial-activism.html#comment-37716 YAAB Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:20:29 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=800#comment-37716 When this complaint comes from the Religious Right, it is actually more astute than they realize, because many of their gripes fundamentally boil down to opposition to our godless Consitution. Therefore, even if they don't say it aloud, a constitutional democracy functioning "as designed" must be a bad thing in many ways. Huckabee's ill-phrased promise to re-write the Constitution to reflect "god's law" stated this objection explicitly. When this complaint comes from the Religious Right, it is actually more astute than they realize, because many of their gripes fundamentally boil down to opposition to our godless Consitution. Therefore, even if they don't say it aloud, a constitutional democracy functioning "as designed" must be a bad thing in many ways. Huckabee's ill-phrased promise to re-write the Constitution to reflect "god's law" stated this objection explicitly.

]]> By: LindaJoy http://www.daylightatheism.org/2008/08/in-praise-of-judicial-activism.html#comment-37715 LindaJoy Mon, 11 Aug 2008 16:16:01 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/?p=800#comment-37715 Very good post, Ebon. Madison worried about the rights of the minority all the time. That's why he said the a taxpayer should not have to forfeit even three pence towards the support in any fashion of a religion that goes against his conscience. Now we have the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives that has taken over $65 billion of our tax dollars and given it to programs that use it for outright proselytizing. On top of that, Bush gave an Executive Order that allows these programs to discriminate in their hiring. Our illustrious Supreme Court, who obviously have put Madison out of their minds, ruled in Hein v. FFRF that the taxpayer has no rights to protest his money being spent on these programs because the funding was not directly flowing from Congress. It went from Congress to the Executive Branch as general expenditure monies and then the faith based money was carved out of that. This current Supreme Court is a disaster when it comes to the very issue you raised about the rights of the minority. I am sure there will be more propping up of the Christian majority before this court is through. Very good post, Ebon. Madison worried about the rights of the minority all the time. That's why he said the a taxpayer should not have to forfeit even three pence towards the support in any fashion of a religion that goes against his conscience. Now we have the White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives that has taken over $65 billion of our tax dollars and given it to programs that use it for outright proselytizing. On top of that, Bush gave an Executive Order that allows these programs to discriminate in their hiring. Our illustrious Supreme Court, who obviously have put Madison out of their minds, ruled in Hein v. FFRF that the taxpayer has no rights to protest his money being spent on these programs because the funding was not directly flowing from Congress. It went from Congress to the Executive Branch as general expenditure monies and then the faith based money was carved out of that. This current Supreme Court is a disaster when it comes to the very issue you raised about the rights of the minority. I am sure there will be more propping up of the Christian majority before this court is through.

]]>