Question about "activist judges"

[hammegk]

It is seen the most in lower courts, where say a judge awards vistation to an abusive man, just because the wife has done something to piss him off.

Er, somehow I don't think many anywhere will agree that "activist judges" favor men's rights, at custody, or any, level.

I agree Moore was & is an "activist judge". Get ready for a lot more of them that do not favor pc-lib agendas. Roe v Wade redux... what a mess that is kicking off, too.

 

[Zero]

Er, somehow I don't think many anywhere will agree that "activist judges" favor men's rights, at custody, or any, level.

I agree Moore was & is an "activist judge". Get ready for a lot more of them that do not favor pc-lib agendas. Roe v Wade redux... what a mess that is kicking off, too.

In other words, we can expect judges to not do their jobs, and not uphold their oaths, just like "Judge" Moore?

 

[Samus]

Upchurch: The question is, which takes presidence, the code or, say, the 1st and/or 14th Amendments (depending on how you look at it)?

The derived right of "freedom of expression" and the 10th/14th amendments would always take precedence. The U.S. Constitution is the point from which all other laws must be derived from and compliant under. However, one must first prove that proscribing gay marriage is in fact a violation of said document.

Upchurch: Interestingly, according to the above link, that code has only been in effect since 1947. Not that it was as socially acceptable as it is now, but does that mean it was fully legal for gays to get married prior to 1947?

My guess, and this is just a guess, is it wasn't necessary to codify a definition before then. Pre-New Deal, the federal government had such a lesser role in people's lives, there was probably no compelling reason to define such a thing. However, I do not know the history behind that section of U.S. code.

 

[Samus]

Brown: Except that this definition is limited to federal law: "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States...." This definition provides a rule of interpretation of federal laws, but does not purport to supercede state laws.

Right, but can a state re-define the term for their own purposes? State laws cannot trump federal law. This makes gay marriage as much a states' rights issue as it does anything else.

 

[Samus]

pgwenthold: I agree with everything you say. But this is the rub: in the State of the Union, for example, the president complained about activist judges perverting society, but then said we needed a constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage. If the judges were "activist judges" by ruling in favor of gay marriage, then that means that the current version of the constitution must not prohibit laws against it, and they were wrong to rule as they did. But if that is the case, why does the constitution need to be amended?

I think the president's stance would be that the lower-level judges should not be able to rule against federal law, and the move for a constitutional amendment is to prevent further trumping of said law.

However, you are correct that the desire to explicitly disallow it seems to indicate those "activist judges" are merely pointing out that the U.S. code does not comply with the constitution. So he wants to change the constitution to fit the current U.S. code.

 

[Brown]

Right, but can a state re-define the term for their own purposes? State laws cannot trump federal law. This makes gay marriage as much a states' rights issue as it does anything else.

A state can adopt its own definitions, sure, and many (if not all) do. Doing so does not necessarily conflict with federal law, so there is no supremacy problem.

You are correct that it is possible for supremacy problems to arise. For example, it is not uncommon for a state court to apply or interpret federal laws. It is possible for the federal law to include a term that defined one way by federal statute and a different way by state statute. In those instances, it would be error for the state court to apply the state definition. The state court must apply the federal definition.

 

[Dancing David]

Er, somehow I don't think many anywhere will agree that "activist judges" favor men's rights, at custody, or any, level.

I agree Moore was & is an "activist judge". Get ready for a lot more of them that do not favor pc-lib agendas. Roe v Wade redux... what a mess that is kicking off, too.

hammegk,
I mentioned lower courts specificaly, and I am thinking of a particular judge here in a rura; county. this man brags about how many orders of protection he doesn't grant. He does act to preserve the custodial rights of men, very much so. In his county you can beat your wife and send the kid to the hospitla. And then you can still get visitation with your kid, he even overturned an OP that a mother had persued to protect the child, on the basis of not deny-ing the abuser thier rights.

Get ready for a lot more of them that do not favor pc-lib agendas.
Why get ready? They have been doing it all along! Judicial activism always has and always will cut both ways! Remember when the courts were into inion busting? I suppose that was liberal pc'lib. Geez hamme all the judges that have been appointed since Carter are by and large 'conservative'.

More conservative whining?

[digression]
This doesn't even begin to look at the system that gives all sorts of breaks to the abuser (male or female), police officers act as a filters all the time as to wether or not a report is even made:they do not just make reports willy-nilly. Then the State's Attorney will almost never charge domestic battery, even when it clearly is domestic battery. Please bargin do away with most of what remains. So by the time that case is likely to ever go to court , the judge goes and does what theya re supposed to and protects the rights of all parties, but often they just ignore the eminent risk that thier choices make. this is why and how kids get killed every day, even though the reprts are made. judges will always act to return children, another example of 'judicial activism'.
[/digression]

 

[VicDaring]

Give the right some credit on this one. They've taken an already divisive issue and couched it in simple, easily parroted, if vague, terminology.

If you think gays are real Americans, with all the rights and privileges thereof, you're a "moral relativist." If you're a jurist who makes a ruling with that reflection, you're "an activist judge."

Just hammer that home. Repeat those catch phases a couple thousand times.

It's like the stations of the freakin' cross.

 

[corplinx]

Conservative Definition of Liberal Activist Judge:
wants equal protection to mean equal protection

Liberal Definition Conservative Activist Judge:
Favors strict constructionism which means Roe V. Wade is a bad decision.

Definitions for Moderates:

Liberal Activist Judge:
Give a criminal a big settlement for getting hurt in the home of his victim.

Conservative Activist Judge:
Makes a Ten Commandments Monolith

As you can see, an activist judge is a purely relative term.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

A lot of the complaints about gay marriage is that so-called "activist judges" are reinventing terms. The response has been to propose amending constitutions to make sure they don't do that.

One problem - there is no such thing as "activist judges".

 

[gnome]

Liberal Activist Judge:
Give a criminal a big settlement for getting hurt in the home of his victim.

As usual I speculate that such settlments are
a) extremely rare and
b) often involve details not widely known that cause the verdict to make more sense.

News media love to make a verdict seem surprising, and as such leave out the details that convinced the jury.

I'm not saying never, and it surely sucks when it does happen, but how big of a problem is this?

On the other hand, I have found one thing I agree with you on...

"Activism" is applied to any judge that interprets the law differently than the complainer.

"Plain meaning" = MY interpretation.