Judicial Activism

Been hearing a lot of that these days, from Republicans and from our own brand of Klansmen, Harper and his Conservatives. How they bleat and whine about Judges who make rulings on issues they don’t agree with, and it begs the question really, what the hell is Judicial Activism?

Take the Senator from Kansas who is opposing a judicial nomination because she performed a committment ceremony for a Lesbian couple. ( full story ) Now this guy wants to determine if the Judge did anything illegal, but is that the Truth? I mean really, is that it or is he simply attempting to prevent someone who disagrees with him from being on the bench?

I mean all this bullshit about Activism is just that, pure political bullshit.

Cases make their way through the judicial system under the system of appeals. Now maybe once it gets up there into where the Supreme Court or the one below it get to it, the proceedings are up to the participants on whether to go up one more rung of the ladder. Now I know that the Supreme Court determines which cases it will hear or not, so I would guess that until then, its up those on either side of the coin.

So if for example the California Supreme Court rules that marraige for straights only is not a violation of anyone’s civil rights, as it did, ( full story ) the issue of whether to go further rests with either side in the case. As it should be, and that is simple procedure, not activism.

I mean it isn’t like some Judge is coming down from the bench and saying to the losing side, hey file an appeal to my court and I’ll rule in your favor.. now that would be activism not to mention plain wrong. However if I bring a case before a Judge that is controversial and that judge listens to the arguments from TWO SIDES and rules in favor, how the fuck is that being an activist?

Makes you wonder how any Civil Rights issues ever got passed if that is true. I mean take the African American issue itself. If the courts hadn’t ruled on the true matter of law, as is their job, would black kids be riding in the front or the back of a school bus? Would a bus driver have the right to order them to the back if those Judges hadn’t ruled in favor of equality for all?

There is the rub actually. The law talks about equality for everyone, that all men are equal, so when a Judge rules that two men have the same right to benefits and licenses that others have, how the fuck is that being an activist? Isn’t it simply a Judge hearing the facts, reading the documents and rendering a decision? Did the Judges back then, all wake up one day and decide to give African Americans equality or were they simply affirming what was already within the Consitituion and Bill of Rights?

I firmly believe that people like George Bush, Stephen Harper and Karl Rove has the right to believe I am not a child of God. They have the right to think I shouldn’t be entitled to medical care or power over a loved one in regards to employment benefits, but they do not have the right to take away what is mine by birthright, the right to be free, to have equal treatment by my Government, and to worship as I choose.

When these people attempt to ursurp the rights of some, simply because it doesn’t suit them, that is activism at its worst, and all a Judge is doing is keeping them on course. That is their job and their duty. Activism doesn’t exist when they are simply doing what they were hired to do.