Friday, November 19, 2004

Believing Any Damn Fool Thing.....

Via the Kansas City Star (Reg. Req.) JUDICIAL SCAPEGOATS: Who's an ‘activist judge'? It depends on which side you're on

I had some (misplaced) hopes for this bit of opinion based upon its title. It would seem to give the indication that complaints about "activist" judges have more to do about political ideology than aything else. The way you view particular judges would "depend on which side you're on," and would necessarily affect Democrats and Republicans in similar fashions. No such luck. Once again, the Democratic position is the position of sweetness and light and the Republicans are just a bunch of hypocrites.

I disagree. There is more than enough hypocracy to go around.

Along with scapegoating, the hue and cry about “activist judges” has the tinge of lousy sportsmanship.

I didn't like the call. Therefore it must be wrong.

Since Republicans are the ones throwing around the label, it's fair to wonder about double standards.


This is an amazing piece of selective memory. The "hue and cry" of Democrats after the 2000 election is the classic example of this type of attitude. You actually had Democrats claiming that the court shouldn't have been able to argue an "equal protection" claim because that's the one the Democrats use!!! Not the Republicans!!! They came close to actually admitting that as used by Democratic judges "equal protection" doesn't exist as a real constitutional law principle, but only as a justification for their personal preferences. Now, I'm not saying that suddenly finding an equal protection argument where you hardly ever find one before isn't hypocritical. What I am saying is that it is no more hypocritical then doing the exact opposite.

But what to make then of Bush's insistence on nominating for a federal appeals judgeship Priscilla Owen? She made a name for herself on the Texas Supreme Court by repeatedly reinterpreting a state statute so that young women could not obtain abortions without notifying potentially abusive parents.

Even former Texas Supreme Court Judge Alberto Gonzales, now Bush's pick for the next attorney general, thought Owen's opinions strayed far from the law. But apparently she isn't activist, because, as a conservative, she meets the criteria of Bush's base.

Once again, I'm not saying that the behavior isn't hypocritical. What I am saying is that it is a little rich to argue that the other side should hold to standards of behavior that your own side adamantly refuses to acknowledge exist. Yes, Owen's behavior deviates from the stated norms of judicial activity espoused by the Republican party. As such a Republican would have ample room to criticize her. The behavior does NOT deviate from Democratic judicial "principles" (I use the word loosely, to the extent that you can actually seperate their "judicial principles" from their "ideological preferences") and as such leave little (or no) room for non-hypocritical criticism from the Left.

The articles then veers into the merely silly.

An interesting aspect of the scorning of activist judges is that a lot of them were appointed by Republicans.

Six of the seven judges who legalized gay marriage in Massachusetts were the choices of Republican governors. Seven of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republican presidents. Nine of the 13 federal appeals courts have majorities of Republican appointees; two others are evenly split between Republican and Democratic appointees.

That's right. I suppose all these nominations by Republican chief executives have been done in a vacuum where oversight and/or confirmation by Democratic legislatures did not exist. Uhh...yeah.

The moment you give carte blanche to judges to "interpret" their own preferences into the law ("Hey look guys!! The Constitution corresponds EXACTLY to my personal preferences! It says so right here in the penumbra! Ain't I lucky!"), you make the courts just another arena for political activity, no different from the legislatures. Of course, in the post-New Deal era Democrats never had a problem with that. The Supreme Court, over time, became their backyard. Well, its a new era and the Republican seem intent by playing by the same set of rules as the post-New Deal Democrats. What goes around comes around.

It's not an ideal situation by my standards. But it isn't any different either.

No comments: