|
I think that dksuddeth has a pretty accurate interpretation of activism. Its neither a good nor bad thing, just like any tool. To take it a step farther, I think that most strict interpretationists dislike activism because it hems them in and forces them to follow the activists. Strict interpertation not only requires that judges follow what is in the Constitution but also how that wording has been interpreted in the past (precendents). Every single constitutional question, no matter how minute, requires interpretation of the document in every single instance. There's no way around it. Once an activist judge sets the prescendent and it is upheld, interpretationalist judges have to accept that prescedent as the law of the land for as much as it is relevent in whatever case is before them. A judge who believes that there's no constitutional protection for abortion (regardless of her personal thoughts on the issue), has to follow the Roe v. Wade decision when faced with something like the South Dakota suits that are brewing.
Judges can't just give a yes-or-no answer on most of these issues. They have to explain themselves and show why their decision is the correct one and what it means to the rest of the world. That happens regardless of how much of an activist a judge may or may not be.
To say that activism is only a tool used by politically liberal judges or the Left as a whole is incredibly myopic. The first truely activist decisions were all heavily conservative (Dred Scott, anyone?), and there's been a real resurgence of conservative activists on the bench in recent years. They are more prevalent in state courts than federal, but they are out there doing their thing.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|