Know Where You Stand: Activist Judges Edition
This post was inspired by Sandra Day O’Connor’s recent appearance on “The Daily Show”. Justice O’Connor is building a website to explain the Judicial branch of government, which I will now try to do to the best of my ability.
Often the phrase “Activist Judges” is thrown around by pundits of both the Conservative and Liberal movements. To put it honestly and fairly, an activist judge is someone who overturns a law that you agreed with. Certainly there are judges with political, religious, and social agendas. However, the Founding Fathers in their wisdom constructed the United States Supreme Court of nine justices. Both so there would be no draws, and so there would enough decision makers, that the biases of one justice could not become law. A pure definition of Activist Judges, if there is one, is a group of judges in the majority, who disregard Aristotle’s famous statement “The law is reason free from passion,” and rule according to their conscience, and not the rule of law.
The Judicial Branch of the United States Government is tasked with the oversight of the Legislative, and Executive Branches of government, as well as laws as predicated by the constitution. The Constitution of the United States of America tasks each branch of government with the oversight of the other two. However, in matters of National Law, the Judiciary is the last stop. Bills are brought before Congress to be debated, reformed, and voted upon. If a bill is passed through congress, it is then passed on to the Executive Branch, which has the option to Veto the bill. If the bill is signed by the President, it becomes law. The Judicial Branch has oversight in this process, only if a case of unconstitutionality is brought against a signed law. If a case of unconstitutional law is brought before the Supreme Court, they must make a ruling based on laws already written in the Constitution, which they must cite.
To further protect the US Supreme Court from corruption, the Founding Fathers made the matter of their appointment uniquely non-political. Justices are appointed by the President, and though their appointment must be confirmed, they are free from a voting constituency and are thus unmotivated to pander to it. This is a major pitfall of many State Supreme Courts whose Justices must be elected to their offices by popular vote. However, State Supreme Courts still are charged with ruling based on their State’s Constitution, and are much less likely to be reelected if they betray their solemn oaths, and incur the wrath of their State Legislature.
