Why members of the judiciary get the label "activist judges".

[Walt Starr]

It's pretty simple. Follow the process:

1) An idiotic legislative body creates a stupid law that directly contradicts other laws and the constitution either of the state or the nation depending upon the level at which the idiotic legislative body works.

2)An idiotic executive branch applies the stupid law that directly contradicts other laws or constitutions in a way it was never intended to be applied on an entirely unrelated case from the type of case the stupid law was meant to address.

3) The independent judiciary attempts to sort through the mess created by the idiotic legislative and executive branches. Makes a decision based upon adjudication of the law as presented.

4) The judicial decision is appealed and the next court in line attempts to sort through the growing mess.

5) Lather, rinse, repeat.

6) It gets to a Supreme Court (state or federal depending upon the level of government where it applies) level which rules on the idiotic law as it applies constitutionally.

7) The idiotic legislative and executive branches are aghast that their stupid law does not work in the way they envisioned it working and blame their failures on "activist judges" who have decided to "legislate from the bench".

Pretty simple, huh?

[TwilightZone]

1. It's even more simple than that.

From the conservative perspective, it is simply:

"Activist" = "an opinion differing from mine"

[Walt Starr]

2. That's the simple breakdown of number 7

Numbers 1 - 6 are how we get there.

:D

[TwilightZone]

3. Very true. Perhaps another step in the process should be:

fold, spindle, and mutilate!

Oh, wait. That's Congress' job.

[leftofthedial]

4. bingo

[Freedom_from_Chains]

5. Actually I think it is simpler than that.

When one says that the court is full of activist judges it means: they disagreed with the courts decision.

When one says that the court followed the rule of law it means: they agreed with the courts decision.

What it might mean in legal terms is irrelevant because the people who are making these statements don't know anything about law to begin with.

[Yosie]

7. Sadly - most of our citizens

--including most lawyers and most legislators -- don't know beans about the Constitution.

[TwilightZone]

8. I think that many know about it, but consciously...

choose to ignore it for personal and/or political gain.

[Freedom_from_Chains]

10. I would have to disagree with that

I watched the Clinton impeachment hearings in the house very closely when they were going on. There we some truly great Constitutional arguments made by congressmen from both sides of the isle during those proceedings.

Therefore, I am more of the opinion that they do understand the Constitution; they are just willing to subvert it when it gets in their way.

[Yosie]

12. See my append #6 below

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3349536&mesg_id=3349628&page=

[Yosie]

6. And the Boards of State Bar Discipline

absolutely refuse to add Constitutional Law to the small body --- 25% of Continuing Legal Education hours --- of "Required Continuing Legal Education" subjects (which already includes Ethics, Stress Management, Diversity in the Legal Profession, How to Cope with Substance Abuse Among Your Partners, and How to Recognize Alzheimer's Disease Among Your Partners - but not Constitutional Law).

We don't even teach High School Civics any more.

And a majority of our people think the First Amendment "goes too far ----------- sheeeeesh

[Freedom_from_Chains]

13. You might want to be careful how you interpret this

It really is not surprising that the local bar might not include Constitutional Law for their requirements. I know many of the CLE courses I have seen in this state have more to do with managing a law office and billing than any aspect of law.

Nevertheless, the fact is that most attorneys will never get involved in Constitutional issues as part of their practice, outside of criminal attorneys and a few other instances. And if they work for one of the large legal firms there is usually someone or some group within the firm that specializes in Constitutional law, should those issues arise, and they provide for their own education. I know some attorneys who work in the corporate sector that outside of law school have never seen the inside of a court room, and most likely never will. So contrary to popular perception many cases are run through the courts ever day that never involve any Constitutional questions.

So when the local bar determines what CLU requirements they should mandate as part of their requirements, their objective is to provide courses that can have utility for the largest number of people.

"We don't even teach High School Civics any more"

And this is something, which I think you will agree with, that I have always seen as a problem. As part of the standard H.S. education people should be able to describe the basic functions of government, and hopefully maybe some of the basic philosophical thought behind it, although that may be asking a bit much, and at least understand the basic concepts of law and our legal system before they graduate.

However, the fact is we don't teach it and consequently they majority of adults have little to no understanding of it, which I find concerning because it affects so much of our lives. I'm pretty sure that I could poll 100 people on the street and ask them to compare and contrast the standard of judgment between a criminal proceeding and a civil proceeding and I would be lucky if I could get 5 people out of a 100 who could do so. And it just doesn't get anymore basic than that.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now.

[Yosie]

14. Before I "retired" ("retired lawyer" = oxymoron)

My practice was typical techie law (IP, plus HR, corp finance and governance for "start ups")- with a grand total of two constitutional cases - both pro bono - no fee. They were fun - and I had a Con Law prof at the local law school working with me.

However, now that I am "retired" - about one quarter of my practice is "equal protection" and "First Amendment - establishment - free exercise" counseling and threats of litigation. (Including PFAW "Election Protection" last fall)

And most of my state bar and county bar provided CLE has been "This Year's State Supreme Court Decisions" and the mandatory subjects, and "Elder Law" -- I rely on my specialty associations for the stuff I need to stay current.

You don't know where the practice will take you. But I have always had fun -- and the Con Law has been the most fun (has to be if you're a progressive liberal)

[rustydog]

9. Fighting back against this crap is vital. my letter to the editor

states it isn't activist judges America has to worry about, it is activist politicians advancing their sick agenda.

[zbdent]

11. Personal theory - the nutcases complain about how criminals have

so many more rights than law-abiding citizens (and TS has had far more appeals than any death penalty case)

Well, if the rich people would have done their time in jail for their crimes instead of hiring a high-priced lawyer, or hadn't bribed a judge to "look the other way" in sentencing, then all the rulings that have to be applied to ALL instead of just the "single case" would not be giving those rights to the criminals.

In other words, saving their asses when they were guilty means that they paved the way for all the others to get off - and the country is worse off for it.