Activist judges. Judicial activism. Usurping the will of the people. Legislating from the bench.
We hear elected politicians utter those phrases on an almost daily basis in response to some perceived outrage emanating from the third branch of government. But the charge is more about whether the politician in question agrees with the decision than whether the decision was based in law.
Take, for instance, Rep. Paul Broun, R-Athens. Last week Broun, who earlier condemned the California Supreme Court gay marriage decision, railed against the U.S. Supreme Court for overturning the death sentence of a Louisiana man convicted of raping a 13-year-old because it is cruel and unusual punishment.
“This case represents the latest sad example of judicial activism in the United States,” declared Broun. “Not only did these unelected judges maliciously overrule laws enacted by the people and their elected officials, but they also ruled to protect child-rapists. I am sick and tired of judges who believe it is their job to rewrite the Constitution as they see fit.”
Broun’s GOP opponent Barry Fleming argues that Broun protected child rapists with some of his votes in Congress, which explains Broun’s loud militancy on this issue. He even introduced Constitutional amendments allowing men who rape people 16 or younger to be castrated - talk about cruel and unusual punishment - and specifically allowing the death penalty for raping a 13-year-old.
Other politicians rushed to condemn the ruling as well.
"I am pleased that Justice Kennedy indicated in his ruling that Georgia’s law permitting execution for child rape is still in effect,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss saidc after condemning the ruling. “As a father and grandfather it frankly makes me sick to think the Court would have such poor judgment”
But when the same court overturned the District of Columbia’s ban on owning hand guns on Second Amendment grounds, Broun congratulated them on their wise and just ruling, but added that it did not go far enough because it allowed some restrictions on guns.
“I vigorously oppose all attempts to restrict that right and I believe that any law – whether at the local, state, or federal level – which restricts or infringes upon law-abiding citizens’ ability to own a firearm is unconstitutional,” he said.
Broun wasn't the only one who quickly moved to announce their support for the Heller ruling.
“The millions of law-abiding citizens in our country are promised in the Constitution the ability to protect and defend themselves,” Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle said.
“I enthusiastically support this decision and, when elected to Congress, I will stand against similar efforts to restrict the rights of law abiding gun owners in our great country," Broun’s Democratic opponent Bobby Saxon said.
“The ability of decent, hard-working Americans to own a gun, whether for sport or protection, is clearly defined in the Constitution and must not be compromise,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss said. “Only a government that does not trust its citizens would refuse them the right to bear arms.”
Note that none of these men are lawyers or judges (correction: Chambliss has a law degree and is an inactive member of the bar). Shouldn’t interpreting the Constitution be up to them, not people who decide where they stand based on polls, ideology or nausea? If the only good court decisions are the ones lawmakers agree with, why bother to have courts?
- Blake Aued's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Broun's a constitutional scholar
Paul Broun reads his pocket Constitution every day... that makes him perfectly qualified to interpret the Constitution.
Also, keep in mind he's a doctor, a scientist, a farmer, a hunter, a safari expedition leader, a former lobbyist, a former marine, a minister, a missionary, a gun owner, a Constitutional scholar, and a reproductive biologist.
Despite all that, he's still a horrible excuse for a congressman.
He may be my congressman,
He may be my congressman, but he's no Constitutional scholar. That is for darn sure.
Other Republican politicians
Other Republican politicians quickly moved to announce their support for the Heller ruling.
There were a few Democratic politicians who announced their support for the Heller ruling, including Mr. Obama (D-Jakarta):
“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures. The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view, and while it ruled that the D.C. gun ban went too far, Justice Scalia himself acknowledged that this right is not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe."
Russ Feingold (D-Vermont)
“I am very pleased the Supreme Court finally recognized that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. This is an important decision for millions of law-abiding gun owners. Public safety must be ensured without depriving our citizens of their constitutional rights.”
Good for them
I'm not on their press lists, though.
The beauty of the constitution is
you don't have to be a lawyer to understand it.
actually you sort of do...
actually you sort of do...
I thought Saxby Chambliss
I thought Saxby Chambliss was a lawyer.
He has a law degree.
I don't know that he's ever practiced. If so, I stand corrected.
What looks good on a lawyer?
He has a JD degree, but he's not a member of the bar.
Oh. My mistake. I apologize!
Oh. My mistake. I apologize!
All this shows is that Broun
All this shows is that Broun isn;t principled -- as he claims to be -- but is merely an ideologue, picking and choosing which examples of courts overruling legislatures he likes.
He is
(Broun) just another ideologue. I am always amused how activist a judge is only when an individual disagrees with them.
Sanderlinsghost, that was very ignorant. Senator Obama and he is from Illinois...obviously you are backing that Manchurian Candidate John McCain.
Albert, no you do not need to be a lawyer to understand the constitution...but it takes an extrememly educated mind to interpret the constitution. The document was written by men with classical education and a knowledge of political history. Political history to your average person is knowing about the 2000 election scandal...which is hardly sufficient. The constitution was left inherently vague, to allow for the adaptation of advanced american societies. This is where the "activism" comes from. People like justice Thomas or Scalia often forget that this is not the 18th century and that we stopped burning witches at the stake. For the most part, this statement applies to "congressman" broun.
Fleming looks more attractive everytime Broun opens his mouth
My 8th grade reading students
understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights without a problem along with the Mayflower Compact and Declaration of Independence.
They comprehend the words.
They comprehend the words. There's a great difference in being able to "understand" it an being able to "apply" it to legislative concepts.
I'd argue they have the same
I'd argue they have the same level of comprehension (and intellect) as Paul Broun has showcased while on Capitol Hill.
Saxby is still a lawyer...
...and he used to be a very good one. He was a partner for many years in a successful firm that did lots of work for utilities (mostly EMCs, as I recall). He's still a member of the Bar, just inactive. He's also a Fellow of the Lawyers' Foundation of Georgia.
Whoopsis
Yes, my bad. He is a member of the bar.
He's inactive
According to the Georgia Bar Association, which means he can't practice.
Nonetheless, he's still a
Nonetheless, he's still a lawyer. But I didn't mean to nitpick. The rest of the post still holds true.
Polling Problem
I don't know if the polling done in this area is affected by this or not, but it's an interesting study:
http://www.cdc.gov/news/2007/07/SurveySystem.html
"However, in 2006, approximately 12 percent of US adults reported living in cell phone–only households. More than half of all adults living with unrelated roommates and one-in-four adults aged 18 to 34 years lived in cell phone–only households.
As a result, population coverage provided by landline telephones has been eroded to pre-1970s levels, raising concerns about the representativeness of landline telephone surveys. With the growing popularity of cell phones, this trend is expected to continue."
It also depends where you live though.
That is why it is called an average. The 10th district, if you subtract Athens and Augusta, is not too bad of a district to gauge public opinions via land-line polling.
That is important to note. I believe that this election(the primary race...the general election has already been decided) in the 10th will be decided in the rural areas, not in Augusta or Athens. Athens and Auusta would really only matter in a general election with a viable democratic candidate.
That is an excellent article though, Annoyed Dawg.
I recall that was an issue
I recall that was an issue in 2004, when there was speculation that polls lowballed John Kerry because young and poor people tend to have cells only, not land lines. Obviously, that turned out not to be the case. The type of people described in that article don't vote much so I don't think it's much of a factor yet.
Jacob, I agree that points north of Athens are where the election is decided.