Saturday, February 24, 2007

"Judicial Activism" defined (in their own words):

Excellent. You've probably heard about Conservapedia and it's various entries (e.g. unicorn), but at Lawyers, Guns and Money, they focus on the entry for Judicial Activism. Here it is:
There are two major types of judicial activism practiced in the United States' court system:

1. Liberal judges striking down laws that uphold core conservative American values
2. Liberal judges refusing to strike down laws that subvert core conservative American values
In orther words, "judicial activism" refers to court decisions that conservatives don't like.

No principles of law are involved. No issues of the power relations between the three branches of government. No originalism. No textualism. No traditionalism. It's whatever rulings conservatives are unhappy with (which includes a whole lot of centrist rulings as well).

Media, take note.

Also, about item (2), where judges refuse to strike down laws, which could be totally legitimate from any constitutional perspective, just because they "subvert" conservative values. Got that? Values.

Various states have passed initiatives, voted on by the entire electorate, to do things like preserve forests, decriminalize drugs. And legislatures have passed domestic partnership laws. Entirely legitimate. And yet judges that do not strike down such laws are deemed activist.

It's high time to retire this meaningless slur.

CORRECTION: Apparently that entry was done as a joke by a recent non-conservative contributer (as noted in comments).


A commentor over at Pharyngula named DrShaffopolis has claimed credit for the 'judicial activism' entry. He claims it is a hoax.

By Blogger idahogie, at 2/24/2007 9:45 PM  

The entry for "Faith" is also illuminating. Take a look at the last entry on the discussion page:

"ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry? You keep falling back on the "Faith is Christian" concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise. Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this "Conservapedia" just a "Schaflyapedia" documenting your opinions rather than facts?"

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2/25/2007 5:46 PM  

This def of "judicial activism" is SO bogus--"judicial activism" goes back to the late 1800's at least, and was/is indulged in by right- and left-leaning judges both.

By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2/25/2007 7:22 PM  

Post a Comment