Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Activist Judges

The New York Times, showing it's traditional LIBERAL BIAS, has an article today accusing Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia of judicial activism. This charge would be laughable if it weren't based on a semi reasonable methodology.

The authors took as a sign of Judicial activism the decision to declare a law unconstitutional. If a Justice voted to overturn a law (as is the Supreme Court's perogative), that is an example of Judicial Activism. By this standard, Clarence Thomas is the most activist justice on the bench, having voted to overturn a law 65.63% of the time. Ruth Bader Gingsburg, on the other hand, has a rating of 39.06%. Parenthetically I should add I didn't check the figures; I'm assuming the authors got them right.

The problem with this analysis is that it ignores the larger framework. If a person ran into your house and started spraying everything with water from a hose, you would probably call the cops to have him hauled away. But if your house was on fire and a person did the same thing, you would praise his heroism.


We've had 80 years of bad justice, creating a climate in which many of the laws passed are frankly unconstitutional. A strict constructionalist naturally will find himself declaring a lot of laws unconstitutional; it's those who believe in a "fluid interpretation" of the constitution that will allow this desecration of American principles to continue unabated.

I will add another point; those of us who support President Bush are looking to see if he is going to live up to his promise. I am confident he will. It's important that America gets the sort of Justice it deserves and that the Liberals of this country learn where they stand. If President Bush puts up a weak or a middle of the road type of candidate, someone who isn't going to fight for the constitutionalist vision of America, well, let's just say I think that would be a serious mistake.

No comments: