The anti-Judicial movement strikes again

[LuckyTheDog]

Their goal seems to be to erode the rule of law and elevate political power and majority rule at the expense of our traditional protections for minority opinion. It's a sad attempt to remake America into a meaner, less tolerant place.

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/1333071.html

[sinkingfeeling]

1. There is no meaner, less tolerant person on the planet than

the author of this piece.

Edit for grammer

[Spinzonner]

3. Ah, recursion bait

grammar is misspelled

[atommom]

2. When I saw the name Phyllis Schlafly, I knew

it wasn't going to be pretty.

With the lifetime appointments Supreme Court justices and other federal judges have, Schlafly observes, activist judges have the potential to do tremendous harm by legislating from the bench according to their personal agendas, as many have done already. "And therefore," she says, "the most important thing is to cut the power of the courts so they can't do any more damage."

In her recently released book, The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges and How to Stop It, Schlafly offers strategies for addressing the problem of judges who legislate from the bench. Combating judicial activism, she contends, is the most important task of congressional legislators right now because, whether appointees are conservative or liberal, all have the potential to get carried away with their power.

"What happens to these judges once they get on the court," Eagle Forum's founder says, " to think they are better and smarter and wiser than the rest of us, and they can say the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean." The proof of this, she asserts, is the turning of several Supreme Court judges nominated by President Ron Reagan who are now considered liberal.

[alfredo]

6. that's why they are called judges, they interpret the laws

They give opinions. That is their job.

[JDPriestly]

4. But the sitting federal judges were mostly appointed

by Republicans. It would be rare to have someone appointed to the federal judiciary under the age of 40. That means that judges aged 80 and under were all appointed in the last 40 years. That takes us back to 1965. Democratic presidents served and nominated judges for 16 of those 40 years (Clinton - 8 years, Carter - 4 years and Johnson - 4 years). That means that, during the remaining 24 years, all judges were appointed by Republican presidents (Nixon, Ford - 8 years, Reagan - 8 years, Bush I - 4 years and Bush II - 4 1/2 years). I don't know the numbers of judges each of these president appointed, but, as we know, Clinton had enormous problems getting his judges approved -- so relatively few of the judges appointed since 1980 were appointed by Democratic presidents.

Here is what the Christian Science Monitor said on April 14, 2005

Conservatives near lock on US courts
. . . .

Republican appointees now constitute a majority of judges on 10 of the nation's 13 federal appeals courts. As few as three more lifetime appointments on key courts would tip the balance in favor of GOP appointees on all but one appeals court - the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
. . . .

If you have the time you can count the number of judges appointed by each president at
http://www.allianceforjustice.org/judicial/judicial_selection_resources/selection_database/byPresident.asp

Note that very few of the Carter appointees are still active in the federal courts.

Republican justices are also in the majority on the Supreme Court -- Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy (all four Reagan appointees), Thomas, Souter (the two Bush I appointees) and Stevens (Ford appointee) v. Ginsburg, Breyer (both Clinton appointees). That's 7 Republicans to 2 Democrats. Thus, when the conservatives complain about the "liberal" judiciary, they are complaining about Republican appointees.

[atommom]

5. That's what Schlafly is referring to above, when she implies

that merely serving as an appointed judge tends to make one more arrogant and liberal.

"What happens to these judges once they get on the court," Eagle Forum's founder says, " to think they are better and smarter and wiser than the rest of us, and they can say the Constitution means whatever they want it to mean." The proof of this, she asserts, is the turning of several Supreme Court judges nominated by President Ron Reagan who are now considered liberal.

But ... considered liberal by WHOM ....?

[B Calm]

7. The anti-Judicial movement is an anti american terrorist group!