Difference between revisions of "Judicial activism"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Though reluctant to criticize themselves, courts have referenced the term "judicial activism" in 975 reported cases as of Oct. 6, 2020, including 399 federal court decisions and 554 state court decisions.)
(Blanked the page)
Line 1: Line 1:
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:red; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | Judicial activism and revolution
| style="padding:15px;" |If you want to perform a [[revolution]], i.e. to fundamentally change the society and turn its values upside down, there are in essence three ways how to achieve for it:
#You can armor yourself and your friends and make and [[Coup d'etat|coup d'état]] attempt, a violent putsch as [[Bolshevik]]s did in [[Revolution of 1917|1917]]. This is however associated with putting your life at stake. 
#The second option is to campaign before [[democratic]] [[elections]] in order to win the majority of voters, and then change the [[law]] in [[parliament]]. However, who has been in [[politics]] knows well how difficult it is to convince the [[public opinion]].
#Last decades show that the easiest way to implement a revolution goes through the courts. You can only be a [[interest group|small group]]. You can even be completely alone. But if you have "your people" at the [[supreme court]] of the country, people who think like you, you have won. The court decides and the majority of citizens who firmly disagree with the ruling cannot help it. This is called judicial activism. Those who do not use napkins in front of their mouths speak also of judicial [[imperialism]].<div style="padding-left:40px;">&mdash; Vladimír Palko<ref name="Palko2009">{{cite journal |title=Revolucionári v talároch (Revolutionaries in gowns) |author=Vladimír Palko |journal=Impulz |issue=4 |volume=2009 |url=http://www.impulzrevue.sk/article.php?515 |quote=Ak chcete uskutočniť revolúciu, od základu zmeniť spoločnosť a prevrátiť jej hodnoty hore nohami, máte tri možnosti. Môžete vyzbrojiť seba a svojich spoločníkov a urobiť násilný prevrat. Boľševici tak urobili v roku 1917 v Rusku. Samozrejme, môžete pri tom prísť o život. Druhá možnosť je agitovať, získavať hlasy, vo voľbách získať väčšinu, a potom zmeniť zákony v parlamente. Pravda, kto bol v politike, vie, ako ťažko sa získava väčšina. Posledných päťdesiat rokov ukazuje, že najschodnejšia cesta uskutočnenia revolúcie ide cez súdy. Môžete byť iba malou skupinkou. Môžete byť dokonca úplne sám. Ak máte na najvyššom súde krajiny „svojich ľudí“, ľudí, ktorí rozmýšľajú ako vy, máte vyhraté. Súd rozhodne a väčšina občanov, ktorá s rozhodnutím bytostne nesúhlasí, si nepomôže. Toto sa nazýva súdnym aktivizmom. Tí, čo si nedávajú servítok pred ústa, tiež hovoria o súdnom imperializme. ...Kolískou súdneho aktivizmu sú Spojené štáty americké. |accessdate=9 Jul 2016 |language=Slovak}}</ref></div>
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:brown; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | Undemocratic system of government
| style="padding:15px;" |"A system of government that makes the people subordinate to a [[SCOTUS|committee of nine unelected lawyers]] does not deserve to be called [[democracy]]."<div style="padding-left:40px;">&mdash; [[Justice Antonin Scalia]]<ref name="Mohler2015">{{cite book |title=We Cannot Be Silent: Speaking Truth to a Culture Redefining Sex, Marriage, and the Very Meaning of Right and Wrong |author=R. Albert Mohler, Jr. |publisher=Harper Collins |year=2015 |pages=181 |isbn=978-07180-32487 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jNhhCAAAQBAJ |quote=}}</ref></div>
'''Judicial activism''' is when [[court]]s do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law through judicial ''will''.  Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action.  "Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court.  In so doing, the court illegally takes for itself the powers of [[Congress]], rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.
Though reluctant to criticize themselves, courts have referenced the term "judicial activism" in 975 reported cases as of Oct. 6, 2020, including 399 federal court decisions and 554 state court decisions.
In this regard, judicial activism is a way for [[liberal]]s to avoid the regular legislative means of enacting laws in order to ignore public opinion and dodge public debate.  While [[originalism|originalist]] judges sometimes differ among themselves in specific court cases, left-wing judicial activists always vote in a way that advances left-wing policies, no matter how inconsistent they are.<ref>Natelson, Robert (October 20, 2018). [https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/412372-this-supreme-court-term-will-show-bench-lacks-conservative-majority This Supreme Court term will show bench lacks conservative majority]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved October 20, 2018.</ref><ref>Horowitz, Daniel (March 14, 2019). [https://www.conservativereview.com/news/wheres-congressional-outrage-judicial-power-grabs/ Where’s the congressional outrage over judicial power grabs?] ''Conservative Review''. Retrieved March 16, 2019.</ref>
The cradle of judicial activism is the USA.<ref name="Palko2009"/> However, it is seen in many other countries, such as the UK<ref>Dougherty, Michael Brendan (September 24, 2019). [https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/the-curious-remainer-coup/ The Curious Remainer Coup]. ''National Review''. Retrieved September 25, 2019.</ref> and Israel, along with a large number of countries that legalized social taboos simply because of court actions.
Courts in California &#8212; both state and federal ones &#8212; frequently engage in judicial activism, invariably based on political ideology and personal feelings.  One major example of this is the relatively recent California Supreme Court decision ''In re Marriage Cases'', wherein four California [[Supreme Court]] justices (who are appointed, not elected) unilaterally overruled the will of the people of the state of California, and legalized [[same-sex "marriage"]].  Proposition 22, which recognized the traditional definition of marriage had previously been put in place by a majority of California voters, but this did not deter the [[liberal]] judges of the court from acting.  In response, a majority of California voters passed [[Proposition 8]], which amended California's Constitution to uphold the sanctity of marriage, stemming the tide of the [[liberal]] [[homosexual]] assault on marriage before it was too late.
Judicial activism should not be confused with the courts' [[United States Constitution|Constitutionally]] mandated rule in enforcing [[limited government|limitations on government power]] and preserving the Constitutional structure of government, as they did in ''[[Bush v. Gore]],'' ''[[Boy Scouts v. Dale]],'' and ''[[D.C. v. Heller]],'' and as the [[Supreme Court of the United States]] should have done with [[ObamaCare]].
Judicial activism rarely has a positive impact.  Some cite ''Bolling v. Sharpe'', the companion case to ''[[Brown v. Board of Education]]'', which desegregated schools in [[Washington, D.C.]] as an example of beneficial judicial activism.  The [[Equal Protection Clause]], which was cited in ''Brown'', does not apply to the [[District of Columbia]], only to the States.  However, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that segregated schools in the city were still unconstitutional because it was also a violation of the [[due process]] clause of the Fifth Amendment.  Although the impact was clearly desirable, the due process clause typically only applies to legal processes such as criminal trials, not to segregation.  Also, the same result could have been achieved simply by an act of Congress, since they have control over the District's school system.  Legal scholars Cass Sunstein and Randy Barnett agreed in a debate that it was hard to reconcile the ruling with the Constitution, in spite of its positive impact.<ref>[http://legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_cie0505.msp]</ref>  These rare cases are considered to be among the hardest for the Supreme Court to decide.
The phrase "Judicial activism" was coined by [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]] in an article he wrote for ''Fortune'' Magazine titled ''The Supreme Court: 1947''.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=XoO1BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA165 Legal Innovations in Asia: Judicial Lawmaking and the Influence of Comparative Law]</ref>
The rise of judicial activism has coincided with the growing number of contentious and controversial judicial nominations in the U.S.<ref>Gramlich, John (March 7, 2018). [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/03/07/federal-judicial-picks-have-become-more-contentious-and-trumps-are-no-exception/ Federal judicial picks have become more contentious, and Trump’s are no exception]. ''Pew Research Center''. Retrieved March 11, 2018.</ref><ref>[https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/adviceanddissent_chapter.pdf The Struggle to Shape the Federal Judiciary]. ''Brookings Institution''. Retrieved March 11, 2018.</ref><ref>Wolfe, Christopher (March 3, 2006). [https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/constitutional-interpretation-judicial-activism-the-transformation-judicial From Constitutional Interpretation to Judicial Activism: The Transformation of Judicial Review in America]. ''Heritage Foundation''. Retrieved March 11, 2018.</ref>
An example of judicial activism is the Left's support for court packing when conservatives are able to choose [[textualist]] and [[originalism|originalist]] judges.<ref>Klein, Aaron (October 7, 2018). [https://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/10/07/dems-latest-scheme-balance-supreme-court-by-adding-two-liberal-judges/ Dems Latest Scheme: ‘Balance’ Supreme Court by Adding Two Liberal Judges]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved October 7, 2018.</ref>
*''[[Griswold v. Connecticut]]'' — 1965 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to possess, distribute and use [[contraception]].
*''[[Roe v. Wade]]'' — 1973 Supreme Court ruling claiming a constitutional "right" to [[abortion]].<ref>Duke, Selwyn (July 8, 2019). [https://www.thenewamerican.com/print-magazine/item/32665-save-babies-and-abort-judicial-supremacy Save Babies and Abort Judicial Supremacy]. ''The New American''. Retrieved July 8, 2019.</ref>
*''[[Lawrence v. Texas]]'' — 2003 Supreme Court ruling claiming a constitutional "right" to [[sodomy]].
*''[[Obergefell v. Hodges]]'' — 2015 Supreme Court ruling claiming a constitutional "right" to [[same-sex "marriage"]].
*''[[Bostock v. Clayton County]]'' — 2020 Supreme Court ruling reading homosexuality and [[gender confusion]] into the definition of "sex", as originally added into the [[Civil Rights Act of 1964]] as a [[poison pill amendment|poison pill]] by Democrat senator Howard W. Smith in what was, at the time, an unsuccessful attempt to sabotage and defeat the proposed law, but was recently seized upon by the liberal SCOTUS judges and their LGBTQ allies to further force illegal imposition of homosexuality and gender confusion on the public.
*The [[Nicaragua]]n Supreme Court ruling allowing incumbent president [[Daniel Ortega]] to contest the 2011 election.  The Nicaraguan Constitution forbids an individual from serving as president for more than two non-consecutive terms, disbarring Ortega from filing for reelection on both of these counts.  Daniel Ortega, not willing to give up power, had the [[Sandinistas|Sandinista]]-controlled Supreme Court overrule the current law as being in "violation" of human rights.<ref>[https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/10/nicaraguas-presidential-elections-how-daniel-ortega-could-shame-democracy Nicaragua’s Presidential Elections: How Daniel Ortega Could Shame Democracy - The American Heritage Foundation]</ref>
*The [[Israel]]i Supreme Court is known for making ideologically based decisions and issuing rulings in favor of the country's Left camp and against its opponents.<ref>[https://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/the_threat_to_israeli_liberties_from_the_israeli_supreme_court.html The Threat to Israeli Liberties from the Israeli Supreme Court - The American Thinker]</ref> Examples of this include forcing the Israelis government to recognize [[same-sex marriage|same-sex "marriages"]] performed abroad.<ref>[http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/107947/0/Israels-Supreme-Court-Approves-Same-Sex-Marriages-Performed-Abroad- Israel's Supreme Court Approves Same-Sex Marriages Performed Abroad - Associated Press]</ref>
*In 2017, the Constitutional Tribunal of [[Chile]] partially lifted the country's ban on abortion.<ref>Berry, Susan (August 21, 2017). [https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2017/08/21/chile-court-lifts-ban-abortion/ Chile Court Lifts Ban on Abortion]. ''Breitbart News''. Retrieved August 22, 2017.</ref>
*Democrats have used the courts to [[gerrymandering|redraw district lines to favor their party]] and disfavor Republicans.<ref>Walker, Scott (May 6, 2019). [https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/scott-walker-republicans-democrats-judicial-power-grab Scott Walker: Republicans need to wake up to Democrats’ nationwide judicial power grab]. ''Fox News''. Retrieved May 6, 2019.</ref>
== Contract law ==
The [[Seventh Circuit]] has criticized as "judicial activism" an interpretation of a contract beyond its clear meaning.  "Thus, when a contract is unambiguous, 'we refuse to indulge in judicial activism' by 'construing the [contract] beyond its clear and obvious language ....' ''See Heller v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y'', 833 F.2d 1253, 1257 (7th Cir. 1987)."  ''Grun v. Pneumo Abex Corp.'', 163 F.3d 411, 420 (7th Cir. 1998).
==External links==
*[https://video.foxnews.com/v/5738221821001/?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips Tucker: Federal courts the most decayed institution of all], February 21, 2018.
*[https://www.theepochtimes.com/chapter-ten-using-the-law-for-evil_2606520.html Chapter Ten: Using the Law for Evil], ''The Epoch Times'' (from ''How the Specter of Communism Is Ruling Our World'').
*[https://humanevents.com/2019/07/02/living-constitutionalism-v-originalism/ Living Constitutionalism v. Originalism.], by Timothy S. Goeglin and Craig Osten, ''Human Events'', July 2, 2019.
==See also==
*[[Judicial Restraint]]
*[[Judicial supremacy]]
*[[United States Supreme Court]]
*[[Sonia Sotomayor]]
*[[Elena Kagan]]
*[[Ruth Bader Ginsburg]]
*[[Stephen Breyer]]
*[[Anthony Kennedy]]
*[[Living Constitution]]
[[Category:United States Government]]
[[Category:United States Supreme Court]]
[[Category:Judicial Activism]]
[[Category:Sexual Revolution]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Revision as of 21:39, 16 November 2020