Why can't liberals just be upfront . Sotomayor is an activist judge- that is she uses judicial power to make law and policy. She and others like her do not believe in separation of powers and are 'loose interpretationists' of the Constitution. They believe in 'social justice' and not law as written. Sotomayor could not 'fight back' because ,to her credit, she is not a hypocrit. The Repubs are accusing her of being who she knows she is and so she can't honestly deny it. Liberals are ok with abandoning the actual words of both the law and the constitution and trust in the elite judicial activists to 'rule the masses'. Sotomayor is that type judge.

Why cant cons be honest and admit that both Alito and Roberts were selected based on their pro life litmus testing? ALL judges are activist. Its just that liberal judges are called activist because as liberals they are more likely to want to change an old law that is based in ignorance (gay marriage for instance) while a con activist judge might try and support a corporations right to pollute a lake because it is technically a large puddle.....

If the best shot you can take at this woman is that she is an "activist" you got nothing....

And was "separation of powers" at work when the SJC installed Bush in 2000?

An activist judge would have just looked at the existing law on the books and refused to listen to this case. No, wait a minute. An activist judge would have made new law out of this by reversing the original decision.....hold on....that is what the Supreme Court did with a five four decision where the five aren't supposed to be activist judges.....No, that's not right....wait.

Gee, this smearing judges with the label activist sure is confusing, ain't it?

No, it is not confusing to look at activist judges. Activist judging is wrong on any 'side'. It is easy to see activist judging- activist judging steps past the written law and writes new law. Regardless of whether it is'left' or 'right' judges writing law is a violation of separation of powers and undermines the rule of law. The Federal courts are not supposed to be a House of Lords, they are not supposed to throw out the work of the Legislative branch and write law. Much of the division within our country stems from the anger and distrust caused when the Fed courts write law because judicial written law comes off as unfair and biased-because it is!

The Real RML:

And was "separation of powers" at work when the SJC installed Bush in 2000?

(yawn) old and tired argument. Funny thing is... it was Al Gore who first filed suit.

So which is it?

Scalia still laughs about that one!

It is not activist judging when the court follows the law and rules in a way one may not like. It was the responsibility of the court to rule in the Bush/Gore election. One side would win and one lose. Courts don't make everyone happy and winning isn't the test of activism. The measure is-did the court follow or did it MAKE law?

It is not activist judging when the court follows the law and rules in a way one may not like. It was the responsibility of the court to rule in the Ricci v Destephano case. One side would win and one lose. Courts don't make everyone happy and winning isn't the test of activism. The measure is-did the court follow or did it MAKE law?

siempre:

It is not activist judging when the court follows the law and rules in a way one may not like. It was the responsibility of the court to rule in the Bush/Gore election. One side would win and one lose. Courts don't make everyone happy and winning isn't the test of activism. The measure is-did the court follow or did it MAKE law?

At this point, it's a pretty academic question. The more so, since the court itself said in its decision that that decision should not be considered to be a legal precedent for any similar cases in the future. The Minnesota Supreme Court explicitly stated that the principle behind "Bush v. Gore" could not apply in the recent dispute over its 2008 Senatorial election. Although the USSC never took on that case, it's really unlikely they'd have applied the same standard in Minnesota, 2008 that they had applied in Florida, 2000. Which is to say, it was not a standard. And, by definition, not a legal principle -- since a "principle" is some construct that operates upon a whole class of situations.

So, yes, it was most definitely "activist" when the USSC ruled in favor of GW Bush and forced a halt to the vote recount in Florida. Which really goes to show you how meaningless the "activist" tag has become.

I mean, does anybody SERIOUSLY wish for "passive" justices on the bench?

Tarkol:

The Real RML:

And was "separation of powers" at work when the SJC installed Bush in 2000?

(yawn) old and tired argument. Funny thing is... it was Al Gore who first filed suit.

Just a little fact check: The case is titled "Bush vs. Gore". You can look it up in a gazillion places. Civil court cases are always named like "<plaintiff> vs. <defendent>". In Criminal cases, the "plaintiff" is normally a government entity -- local, state, or federal.

So, the very name of the case tells you that the suit was brought BY Bush AGAINST Gore.

But, don't take my word for it. Feel free to check it out for yourself. You could start by googling "Bush vs. Gore" and then "Gore vs. Bush" -- see how many hits come up on each. Then, maybe, skim through a couple of each.

Siempre, the Supreme Court can (and does) create law; in other words, it does not have to adhere to precedence. Yes, there are three distinct branches of government. But to say that they each have completely separate functions is incorrect. The judicial branch, through several mechanisms, can and does create law. The Supreme Court does not create statutes, but its interpretation of the law draws boundaries around the law's application, and these boundaries both refine and redefine the law.

It is not only "activist" judges who create law. Because "activist" has become synonymous with liberal on the right-wing talk show circus, it is disingenous to assert that "activist judging is wrong on any 'side.'"

Exactly. Every time the SJC has sided with a corporation (which it does often) or gone against a union (which it does often) might be called activist. And heck, lets see em avoid calling it activist if they ever get a con majority and overturn Roe....

Siempre,

I am wondering given what you have shared about activist judges how you view the removal of slavery in the United States. Would you have considered the U.S. Supreme Court abolishing slavery before the U.S. Civil War an example of judicial activism since slavery clearly had a legal foundation to justify its continuance if we merely base things on precedent.

Please let me know if you think that slavery was and is a good thing

Taking a ironclad black-and-white position of how you define activism really troubles me since I think that you don't see the problems inherent in the rigid legal position you espouse. It also ignores judicial history since the Supreme Court has reversed itself in the past and will probably do so in the future.