Activist Judges

[Phred]

I hear this far too often, that judges are being activists and promoting their own agendas, regardless for the law.

Please provide an example of a judge who has ruled independent of the law.

.
​

 

[HouseApe]

I'm betting you're not going to get a whole lot of responses to this.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

http://www.christianforums.com/t1374124-activist-judges-blah-blah.html

 

[crazyfingers]

Source

 

[Ninja Turtles]

I hear this far too often, that judges are being activists and promoting their own agendas, regardless for the law.

Please provide an example of a judge who has ruled independent of the law.

Why do you hate freedom?

The crickets will chirp in this one too. Much like the Hate Michael Schiavo thread, the odds of a person actually taking the time to back up their emotion-filled reactionary statements that are based on half-truths, misinformation, and outright lies is rather remote.

 

[Donut Hole]

Brown v. Board of Education.

Those liberal activist judges overturned the people's laws, thwarting the will of the people.

 

[ptgd1st]

I am curious if this is something you can even prove. Most laws are so vague that you could interpret any way you wish. It would be truly hard to prove someone was judging outside of the law unless there was a blatant disregard. There may be some issues inappropriate for the court to rule on in which case congress needs to step in and set boundries.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

I am curious if this is something you can even prove. Most laws are so vague that you could interpret any way you wish. It would be truly hard to prove someone was judging outside of the law unless there was a blatant disregard. There may be some issues inappropriate for the court to rule on in which case congress needs to step in and set boundries.

Congress nor the President have any more power in this country than judges do. If a law is vague, then that is the fault of congress, and it is the judges right to interpret how they see fit. If congress doesn't like it, they need to write better, less vague laws.

The problem is, that will never happen. Laws that are vague are purposely so, because if they weren't, the law would never have a chance of even being passed.

 

[ptgd1st]

Congress nor the President have any more power in this country than judges do. If a law is vague, then that is the fault of congress, and it is the judges right to interpret how they see fit. If congress doesn't like it, they need to write better, less vague laws.

The problem is, that will never happen. Laws that are vague are purposely so, because if they weren't, the law would never have a chance of even being passed.

agreed.

 

[Phred]

So activist judges don't exist. That's what two entire threads come to... not one example of a judge being activist... just fools who don't like what the law states.

.
​

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

So activist judges don't exist. That's what two entire threads come to... not one example of a judge being activist... just fools who don't like what the law states.

.


​

Apparently.

 

[seebs]

The Supreme Court ruling in Loving v. Virginia was judicial activism.

The problem is that people mostly hate this when it goes against them, and ignore it when it goes for them, resulting in very inconsistent attempts to suggest policy.

 

[ptgd1st]

Congress nor the President have any more power in this country than judges do. If a law is vague, then that is the fault of congress, and it is the judges right to interpret how they see fit. If congress doesn't like it, they need to write better, less vague laws.

The problem is, that will never happen. Laws that are vague are purposely so, because if they weren't, the law would never have a chance of even being passed.

But in a sense congress does have more power than the judges in that they can limit or define the issues to which the courts can deal with. My thought was that if there is truly a problem with these sensitive issues then take them out of the hands of the courts.

 

[JustJack!]

But in a sense congress does have more power than the judges in that they can limit or define the issues to which the courts can deal with. My thought was that if there is truly a problem with these sensitive issues then take them out of the hands of the courts.

Somehow I think we may come to regret neutering the courts by allowing Congress to decide on which issues it can and can not hear.