Hypocrisy of the Week
As everyone has by now heard, this country is going to shit because of the wild judicial decisions made by activist judges. At least, that's what our right-wing friends and their leader, Emperor Bush, would like us to believe. Although I haven't found an exact definition of what an activist judge is, Wikipedia's entry on this subject contains the following line: "a term used perforatively to describe rulings or decisions which are perceived to endorse or implement a particular social or political agenda".
Despite the fact that the whole Judicial Activism entry in Wikipedia is being contested as not being "neutral", I think the definition given is somewhat accurate. An activist judge is someone who basis his or her decision on personal opinion and motivation, not on Constitutional arguments. Not that I think judicial activism is as rampant in this country as some would have us believe. In fact, I think it's a diversion used by our 'leaders' who just don't agree with the fact that judges from all levels of our judicial system have found certain legislation unconstitutional. That's their job and if they rule as such then we're in the position to accept it or appeal it, not make false claims that those making these highly important decisions are biased. Perhaps that asking too much.
But let's go back to that definition again. A activist judge, in his or her simplest form, is someone who ignore Constitutional precedent to form an judicial opinion tainted with personal opinion and bias. It comes as no surprise, of course, that the person leading the way in this finger pointing is our fearless president. It seems strange to me that the issue of activist judges hasn't actually been a issue at all until this current presidency. Could it have anything to do with the questionable legislative practices of our resident Republican majority Congress? We'll let smarter people than myself make that judgement.
I propose a new term, maybe one that will take us to the end of Bush's second and final term: activist President. Is it possible to be an activist President? In other words, can a President choose a course of action based on personal opinion and not necessarily popular support nor overwhelming precedent or evidence? Of course. It happens all the time, though some President's decisions have more impact than others. Mr. Bush has proven once again that he isn't concerned about the will of the American public nor making policy to make the public happy. Instead, he panders to his major supporters (right wing Christians, big business, etc.). For instance, Bush recently vetoed a bill to provide federal funding to stem cell research despite the legislation being approved by both the Senate and House of Representatives by overwhelming majorities. The people we voted into office to represent us, the people of the United States, decided that we would like more federal funding to go into research that could potentially lead to cures of all sorts of diseases and maladies. Despite this fact, Bush decided to veto the bill because it violated his personal beliefs and those of his supporters. If the man had any credibility before this, it's gone now.
But the truth is that stem cell research is here and it's going to stay. Maybe not in the U.S. but in many other countries around the world. Eventually, when we elect a leader who has at least one foot in reality, we too will join the effort. Of course, there is still some hope left in Bush. If his major contributers ever become so arthritic (a condition potentially cured through stem cell research) that they can no longer sign a donation check, Bush may change his mind. His lack of credibility won't be cured, but it would give the rest of us hope for the future.
Despite the fact that the whole Judicial Activism entry in Wikipedia is being contested as not being "neutral", I think the definition given is somewhat accurate. An activist judge is someone who basis his or her decision on personal opinion and motivation, not on Constitutional arguments. Not that I think judicial activism is as rampant in this country as some would have us believe. In fact, I think it's a diversion used by our 'leaders' who just don't agree with the fact that judges from all levels of our judicial system have found certain legislation unconstitutional. That's their job and if they rule as such then we're in the position to accept it or appeal it, not make false claims that those making these highly important decisions are biased. Perhaps that asking too much.
But let's go back to that definition again. A activist judge, in his or her simplest form, is someone who ignore Constitutional precedent to form an judicial opinion tainted with personal opinion and bias. It comes as no surprise, of course, that the person leading the way in this finger pointing is our fearless president. It seems strange to me that the issue of activist judges hasn't actually been a issue at all until this current presidency. Could it have anything to do with the questionable legislative practices of our resident Republican majority Congress? We'll let smarter people than myself make that judgement.
I propose a new term, maybe one that will take us to the end of Bush's second and final term: activist President. Is it possible to be an activist President? In other words, can a President choose a course of action based on personal opinion and not necessarily popular support nor overwhelming precedent or evidence? Of course. It happens all the time, though some President's decisions have more impact than others. Mr. Bush has proven once again that he isn't concerned about the will of the American public nor making policy to make the public happy. Instead, he panders to his major supporters (right wing Christians, big business, etc.). For instance, Bush recently vetoed a bill to provide federal funding to stem cell research despite the legislation being approved by both the Senate and House of Representatives by overwhelming majorities. The people we voted into office to represent us, the people of the United States, decided that we would like more federal funding to go into research that could potentially lead to cures of all sorts of diseases and maladies. Despite this fact, Bush decided to veto the bill because it violated his personal beliefs and those of his supporters. If the man had any credibility before this, it's gone now.
But the truth is that stem cell research is here and it's going to stay. Maybe not in the U.S. but in many other countries around the world. Eventually, when we elect a leader who has at least one foot in reality, we too will join the effort. Of course, there is still some hope left in Bush. If his major contributers ever become so arthritic (a condition potentially cured through stem cell research) that they can no longer sign a donation check, Bush may change his mind. His lack of credibility won't be cured, but it would give the rest of us hope for the future.
posted by The Rube at Thursday, July 20, 2006
2 Comments:
The term "activist judge" is simply a derogative term coined by conservative republicans to ridicule and criticize judges who take an expansive interpretation of the constitution. Some conservatives are "literalists" and refuse to protect any individual rights that are not specifically enumerated in the constitution. The conservatives do not realize that the constitution and bill of rights was meant to be a living document that adapts to the changes in society. The framers of the bill of rights never anticipated electronic wiretapping. Yet, the overwhelming majority of judges believe the 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable search & seizure apply to such wiretapping. Likewise, the framers never anticipated the internet, but shouldn't we all have a right to speak our mind freely on a blog without facing government censorship or penalty? I laugh when conservatives bemoan activist judges because I believe the conservatives are more clueless than the so-called activist judges. The whole debate around activist judges can be summed up in the 1996 debates between Bob Dole in Bill Clinton. Bob Dole expressed his desire to build a bridge to the past. Bil Clinton's response: I want to build a bridge to the future. I agree with Bill Clinton.
As for our esteemed President, his entire administration is a disgrace. I could spend 50 pages writing about it. Two quick points though. First, stem cell research is imperative and the right-to-lifers are hijacking this country by lobbying to prevent it. Second, this is Bush's first veto. Nice legacy - lets veto a bill that might help cure disease. Interestingly, he almost vetoed a previous bill that called for a ban on torture. Instead of vetoing it (and facing the bad publicity that would have followed), he signed it into law but wrote in a signing statement that he can ignore it whenever he wants.
Dave, your wrong. Remember that the Southern Baptist form of Christianity is the rule of law for moral and social norms here in the US. Remember you voted for that amendment at the last national vote. Maybe, we need to get word that not all decent citizens are Southern Baptist Christians.
The real question is why isn’t the media all over the fact that the Bush’s government is using a moral and social norm framework that most people do not subscribe to?
Of course the whole issue might just boil down to what side has better photo ops. The snowflake babies or the drooling, wandering, shaking, lost, senior citizens who could have been helped.
$.02
Post a Comment
<< Home