Judicial Activism - What does it mean?

[Chadman]

I thought I'd start a topic that is very much at the forefront of talking points regarding the naming of a new Justice. I do not consider myself very knowledgable when it comes to this topic, so I want to learn as much as I can. Both liberals and conservatives are claiming judicial activism on the other side. I'm sure Freeze and others have some good thoughts on this. I'll kick it off with a left perspective post from a very liberal blog. That should get the posts flowing...

-----------------------------------

Those activist conservative judges
by kos (The Daily Kos)
Mon Oct 31, 2005 at 04:00:39 PM PDT

So what are activist judges? Wouldn't the obvious definition be judges who strike down congressional laws? I mean, telling Congress they can't do something is a pretty balsy move.

So which judges are the most activist?

We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.

Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %

To those who *aren't well vesed in the personalities of the Supreme Court -- the first five on the list are conservative judges, Souter is a Republican-nominated moderate judge, and the bottom three are liberal judges. Funny how it's worked out that way. As Atrios says:

I understand that political spinners are going to do what they do, but when the supposedly responsible members of our press are reducing everything to buzzwords and catchphrases they should at least define what they mean. With Alito it's just ridiculous to claim he's a practitioner of "judicial restraint."

Judicial Activism usually means nothing more than "Judgifying I don't like." In other words, it means nothing.

 

[dr. freeze]

Judicial activism has nothing to do with striking down congressional laws. It is their duty to strike them down if they are unConstitutional.

It has everything to do with CREATING laws from the bench and going outside of your Constitutional bounds in doing so.

Where do you find these loons?

 

[Nosigar]

Another stuipid neo-socialist attempt at confusion with child-like statistics and meaningless wording. Man, you guys have to give up some day. You can't keep on making chit up all the time.

Judges are there to rigt the incorrect laws that "electable" lawmakers intend to pass to gain popular support. Yet if these new laws are not in the constitution the job of the SC is to make it unconstitutional and balance the powers.

 

[kosar]

Good to see you finally have your power back and are ok, nosigar. My family in Boynton Beach and Boca Raton still have no power.

 

[Chadman]

I didn't say I agreed with that post, just posted it to get the ball rolling. I said I didn't know enough about it...I knew Freeze was a lawyer and would have a perspective. I'm not making anything up. My wife was a law clerk before becoming an attorney. I know the judge she worked for had her study case law and come up with supportive rulings to make a decision on a case. I know that often times there were many ways to interpret a case, and case law usually could be found to support both sides of a case. I also found it interesting that most of what she gave back to him went right through.

I still find it interesting that we vote on judges and they are listed as Republicans or Democrats on the ballot. Presidents nominate judges for many reasons, and are surely pressured politically by all kinds of groups. I'd have to think that the process is pretty political, and morals and past rulings certainly are studied to get where they want to be.

Perhaps you guys can show me some examples of why the liberals on the court are activists and the conservatives are not. I'm being serious, I would like to see your opinions, not saying that there aren't any. I'm sure there are.

 

[Palehose]

Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
has nothing to do with striking down congressional laws. It is their duty to strike them down if they are unConstitutional.

It has everything to do with CREATING laws from the bench and going outside of your Constitutional bounds in doing so.

Where do you find these loons?

Bwahahaa ! Thanks Freeze !For shooting that one down wow that was amazingly funny I wonder what left wing rag is trying to spin this dribble .

Now reality check ...by all means read about the Supreme Court ruling 2 month's ago On Emminent Domain :

Souter
Stevens
Ginsburg
Breyer
Kennedy

Voted to take peoples prime ocean front homes in order to build a shopping mall ....Nice bastardization of our Constitution and Emminent Domain ya piece of crap Liberals ! :cursin: Gee thought it was Conservatives for big buisness ???

Oh and Kennedy Is a bleeding heart pussy liberal not a Conservative ..even though yes a Conservative gave him the seat his voting record has followed the other Liberal Morons we call SCJ's :scared

Oh by the by this ruling by the Libarals to take peoples homes to build a mall and a theater through Emminent Domain may be the best example of Judicial Activism to ever be ashamed of in the history of the Country . :cursin:

 

[Palehose]

We need to stop rulings like this immeadiatly !!!!!!!!!!!!


www.forbes.com
The Supreme Court, given a chance to revisit a heavily criticized ruling, refused Monday to reconsider its decision giving local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development.
So contentious was the court's narrow 5-4 ruling in the so-called eminent domain case earlier this year that some critics launched a campaign to seize Justice David Souter's farmhouse in New Hampshire to build a luxury hotel. Others singled out Justice Stephen Breyer's vacation home in the same state for use as a park.


Liberal pieces of Crap !!!!!!!!





The Supreme Court, given a chance to revisit a heavily criticized ruling, refused Monday to reconsider its decision giving local governments more power to seize people's homes for economic development.

So contentious was the court's narrow 5-4 ruling in the so-called eminent domain case earlier this year that some critics launched a campaign to seize Justice David Souter's farmhouse in New Hampshire to build a luxury hotel. Others singled out Justice Stephen Breyer's vacation home in the same state for use as a park.

Both Souter and Breyer voted on the prevailing side. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who did not, sharply criticized her colleagues at the time. She said in a minority opinion that the ruling favored the well-heeled over the less fortunate.

In addition, legislators in some 25 states are considering changing their eminent domain laws to soften the impact.

Justices did not comment Monday in refusing to reconsider the case, which had been expected because requests for a reconsideration of rulings are rarely granted.

O'Connor, whose decision to retire created the opening that Washington lawyer John Roberts now seeks to fill, wrote in her angry dissent of June that "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property."

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion and defended it last week in a speech in Las Vegas. The ruling was legally correct, he said, because the high court has "always allowed local policy-makers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public goals."

But Stevens said he had concerns about the results.

"My own view is that the allocation of economic resources that result from the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials," Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association.

Legal experts had said they did not expect the court's ruling, involving an economic development project in New London, Conn., to prompt a rush to claim homes.

Stevens said that "the public outcry that greeted (the ruling) is some evidence that the political process is up to the task of addressing such policy concerns."

The case is Kelo v. City of New London, 04-108.


Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/

By Gina Holland, Associated Press Writer



(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)


You at least have to love how some are going after these pieces of crap ...notice what oppents are trying to do to Shit for brains Souter and Breyer . Their trying to take their homes from these Liberal pieces of shit though the same law they gave away other peoples home with . :mj07: heh talk about justice being served :mj07: :mj07: :mj14:

 

[Palehose]

Liberals .....stealing your country one law suit at a time !!! :cursin:

WASHINGTON (AP) - A divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development in a decision anxiously awaited in communities where economic growth often is at war with individual property rights.

The 5-4 ruling - assailed by dissenting Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as handing "disproportionate influence and power" to the well-heeled in America - was a defeat for Connecticut residents whose homes are slated for destruction to make room for an office complex. They had argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools, or to revitalize blighted areas.

As a result, cities now have wide power to bulldoze residences for projects such as shopping malls and hotel complexes in order to generate tax revenue.

The case was one of six resolved by justices on Thursday. Still pending at the high court are cases dealing with the constitutionality of government Ten Commandments displays and the liability of Internet file-sharing services for clients' illegal swapping of copyrighted songs and movies. The Supreme Court next meets on Monday.

Writing for the court's majority in Thursday's ruling, Justice John Paul Stevens said local officials, not federal judges, know best in deciding whether a development project will benefit the community. States are within their rights to pass additional laws restricting condemnations if residents are overly burdened, he said.

"The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including - but by no means limited to - new jobs and increased tax revenue," Stevens wrote in an opinion joined by Justice Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. LIBERAL ASSHOLES"It is not for the courts to oversee the choice of the boundary line nor to sit in review on the size of a particular project area," he said.

O'Connor, who has often been a key swing vote at the court, issued a stinging dissent, arguing that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers.

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random," she wrote. "The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms."

Connecticut residents involved in the lawsuit expressed dismay and pledged to keep fighting.

"It's a little shocking to believe you can lose your home in this country," said resident Bill Von Winkle, who said he would refuse to leave his home, even if bulldozers showed up. "I won't be going anywhere. Not my house. This is definitely not the last word."

Scott Bullock, an attorney for the Institute for Justice representing the families, added: "A narrow majority of the court simply got the law wrong today and our Constitution and country will suffer as a result."

At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

Susette Kelo and several other homeowners in a working-class neighborhood in New London, Conn., filed suit after city officials announced plans to raze their homes for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

New London officials countered that the private development plans served a public purpose of boosting economic growth that outweighed the homeowners' property rights, even if the area wasn't blighted.

Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett, D-New London, a former mayor and city council member who voted in favor of eminent domain, said the decision "means a lot for New London's future."

"I am just so pleased to know that what we did was right," he said. "We can go ahead with development now."

The lower courts had been divided on the issue, with many allowing a taking only if it eliminates blight.

O'Connor was joined in her opinion by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Nationwide, more than 10,000 properties were threatened or condemned in recent years, according to the Institute for Justice, a Washington public interest law firm representing the New London homeowners.

New London, a town of less than 26,000, once was a center of the whaling industry and later became a manufacturing hub.

More recently the city has suffered the kind of economic woes afflicting urban areas across the country, with losses of residents and jobs. Last month, the Pentagon also announced plans to close the U.S. Naval Submarine Base, one of the city's largest employers, which would eliminate thousands of jobs.

The New London neighborhood that will be swept away includes Victorian-era houses and small businesses that in some instances have been owned by several generations of families. Among the New London residents in the case is a couple in their 80s who have lived in the same home for more than 50 years.

City officials envision a commercial development that would attract tourists to the Thames riverfront, complementing an adjoining Pfizer Corp. research center and a proposed Coast Guard museum.

New London was backed in its appeal by the National League of Cities, which argued that a city's eminent domain power was critical to spurring urban renewal with development projects such Baltimore's Inner Harbor and Kansas City's Kansas Speedway.

Under the ruling, residents still will be entitled to "just compensation" for their homes as provided under the Fifth Amendment. However, Kelo and the other homeowners had refused to move at any price, calling it an unjustified taking of their property.

Thomas filed a separate opinion to argue that seizing homes for private development, even with "just compensation," is unconstitutional.

"The consequences of today's decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful," Thomas wrote. "So-called 'urban renewal' programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted."

The case is Kelo et al v. City of New London, 04-108.

 

[Chadman]

I don't know much about this, just reading through the name-calling and berating of obviously smart people to notice this in the ruling:

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion and defended it last week in a speech in Las Vegas. The ruling was legally correct, he said, because the high court has "always allowed local policy-makers wide latitude in determining how best to achieve legitimate public goals."

But Stevens said he had concerns about the results.

"My own view is that the allocation of economic resources that result from the free play of market forces is more likely to produce acceptable results in the long run than the best-intentioned plans of public officials," Stevens told the Clark County Bar Association.

Seems that the "liberal" had a personal opinion that the free market forces were a more acceptable way to handle the situation, but the prevailing law to back that up just was not there in this case.

I don't know, at quick review it seems I would not be in favor of this ruling. I certainly know of many cases where private companies have taken over private property to build things that "better" the community. I'm sure this has happened many times with conservative big businesses.

More concerned with staying on topic, but take it where you will. Thanks for the opinions, minus the shit for brains references.

 

[Nosigar]

Good to see you finally have your power back and are ok, nosigar. My family in Boynton Beach and Boca Raton still have no power.

Thanks, Matt. See you're fine, fortunately.

Was actually worse than I thought it was going to be. :scared Scary as chit. We really have to thank the Florida post-Andrew building code, 'cause without it who knows. Lost some roof tiles and bent iron fence, that's all. Many, many trees down. had to get my arse putting up shutters all day Sunday, but was worth it.

Lost power for 3 days at home and at my office we got it back yesterday.
Take care

 

[Chadman]

Let's take this a step further. You guys assess that these liberal judges are legislating from the bench and are activists. Yet this ruling clearly does no such thing. It leaves the legislation to local communities and not the Supreme Court or the National Government. Seems to me, anyway. Seems to me the conservative judges are being activists in their votes, in telling the local officials what is best for their communities.

 

[kosar]

Thanks, Matt. See you're fine, fortunately.

Was actually worse than I thought it was going to be. :scared Scary as chit. We really have to thank the Florida post-Andrew building code, 'cause without it who knows. Lost some roof tiles and bent iron fence, that's all. Many, many trees down. had to get my arse putting up shutters all day Sunday, but was worth it.

Lost power for 3 days at home and at my office we got it back yesterday.
Take care

Yeah, it was worse over there than expected and not quite as bad here, although Naples and Marco Island got hit hard. Was a strange storm. Power out at home for two days and at the office for 5. Definitely scary, as you said.

Back to the (sorta) subject. That eminent domain ruling was horseshit no matter who voted how. It's totally baffling how all the left leaning justices voted for that crap.

Right after the ruling, I saw something where they were gonna introduce a bill that would cut off federal funds to any jurisdiction(maybe state also?) that invoked eminent domain. I wonder if that idea's still alive.

 

[kosar]

Let's take this a step further. You guys assess that these liberal judges are legislating from the bench and are activists. Yet this ruling clearly does no such thing. It leaves the legislation to local communities and not the Supreme Court or the National Government. Seems to me, anyway. Seems to me the conservative judges are being activists in their votes, in telling the local officials what is best for their communities.

Chad,

There's no way to spin that ruling. It's the most ridiculous thing that i've ever seen. The 'approval rating' of that ruling is like 6% across the country and there's a reason for that.

 

[Chadman]

I said I don't think I like it, just for the record. I would not want anyone to tell me they were taking my house. Was just discussing the posts. More interested in opinions on judicial activism and what people think it means.

 

[Palehose]

I said I don't think I like it, just for the record. I would not want anyone to tell me they were taking my house. Was just discussing the posts. More interested in opinions on judicial activism and what people think it means.

Chad the "Judcial Activism" part is were the moronic Liberals spun the meaning of "Emminent Domain" to being invoked due to a community's economic hardship ...dont miss the point of your own thread, this is the best example of Judicial Activism it in my 40 plus years alive .

 

[Palehose]

"Back to the (sorta) subject. That eminent domain ruling was horseshit no matter who voted how. It's totally baffling how all the left leaning justices voted for that crap."

Because they lie threw their teeth to get you to vote for them and once their in this is a very typical Ideal for a Liberal in power .

At least you admit you have been had by those of supposedly like mind . I tip my hat to you for that ....Hope all is well for you and yours !

 

[Sun Tzu]

Activism has to do with making up shit that isnt there. Like "penumbras" and "emanations' or "substantive due process."

It has nothing to do with whether a law is struck down or not.

 

[ImFeklhr]

This is the same ruling that came out a couple months ago, correct?

I had to laugh when groups opposed to the ruling made attempts to claim emminent domain on Souter's home to build a golf course.

 

[dr. freeze]

Back to the (sorta) subject. That eminent domain ruling was horseshit no matter who voted how. It's totally baffling how all the left leaning justices voted for that crap.

Really?

They will stop at nothing to take away landowner's rights

everything is the State's!!

Property ownership is a terrible thing!!!

These elitists need the minions to feed off of their scraps. They want the power to tell all of us government-reliant, government-dependent, lazy, incompetent citizens how to live, where to live, what to do, etc. etc.

They want our dollar and our land so they can divy it up accordingly.

Always have, always will.

The Arrogance!!!

 

[djv]

Why do we need any justice we have the bible.