What Are Judges For?

Apparently, for liberals, judges are for pushing their liberal agenda:

“I think he is the wrong judge at the wrong time in the wrong place,” said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., a longtime liberal stalwart. “I do not believe he is going to be part of the whole movement of the continued march towards progress in this country.”

And here I thought judges were supposed to – not push any agenda – but to honestly and faithfully interpret the constitution.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, liberals don’t want judges to faithfully interpret the constitution, they want judges to push their liberal agenda. They know that they can’t count on voters to vote in favor of their agenda, and so they use the court as a means to accomplish it instead. Kennedy himself admits it, I wish others would too.

10 Responses to “What Are Judges For?”

  1. Julissa says:

    Why do you always have to pick on the liberal? LOL

    The same can be said about conservatives, buddy 🙂

  2. Nope, the same can’t be said. In fact, look at almost the whole liberal agenda, whether it’s abortion, gay marriage, bans on the death penalty and various other liberal issues, have you ever voted on any of it? No, because it has all been forced down our throats through judges (…and the few times you have voted on it, say with gay marriage, the voters have always turned it down).

    The same can’t be said of conservative issues.

    Picking on liberals is so fun. They leave themsleves wide open, how could I just pass the opportunity by? 🙂

  3. DD says:

    Yeeeeeeeeeepah!

    Alito wins!

    Congrats! Congrats! Congrats!

    *DD does a lil’ dance. 😉

  4. Michael says:

    How about the Oregon assisted suicide law. That was passed in a statewide general election twice, yet the three ultra- conservatives Thomas, Scalia and Roberts (showing his true colors) all voted to overturn this election.

    It does work both ways.

  5. I’ll give you the Oregon assisted suicide law Michael, but even than, thats still one strike against conservatives, and three strikes against liberals (abortion, gay marriage, and the death penalty).

    In other words, if you want moral issues handled by the voters instead of judges, you are still forced to choose the lesser of the two evils, and support conservative justices.

  6. Michael says:

    I think if it is a matter of supporting the voters will and the will of elected officials then the democratic judges are better given that the leaders in overturning legislation are the conservatives, only difference is that the press is too lazy to research this and blindly follows along the Federalist societies press releases about “activist liberal judges”.

    As far as moral issues, no judge ever differenctiates in his opinion as this is a moral issue, so I abide by the voters, vs this is a non-moral issue so i abide by the commerce clause or precedent or the 14th amendment or whatever. I want judges who interpret all cases based upon precedent and the constitution, in other words the rule of law.

  7. DD says:

    Michael wrote:

    ” I want judges who interpret all cases based upon precedent and the constitution, in other words the rule of law”.

    Hi Michael!

    Yes judges should look to precedent and they should certainly look at past rulings. A lot of times the court will distinguish a given case from a prior case, so if they distinguish a case — they are saying that this new case might be different than the old case…..while not overruling that prior rule of law.

    But the judges will make a decision based on a new set of facts. Sometimes prior precedents are just bad law and this came out during the Alito confirmation.

    For instance, the Brown Case held that the Plessy v. Ferguson (a reflection of the Jim Crow Laws), was not legal. In other words…….the courts basically changed their minds and everyone “NOW” agrees that this was bad law (referring to the Jim Crow Law).

  8. Observer says:

    The same can be said about conservatives

    – Julissa

    You are correct.

    Why should someone’s right to marry a person of the same sex be up for a vote?

    Why should a woman have to submit to public opinion their right to have a medical procedure preformed?

    In these cases, it is the conservatives who want to impose their will on others and they want to do it legally.

  9. Nope, if that were the case, conservatives would be ruling constitutional bans on abortion and gay marriage.

    For example, Roe vs Wade is the opposite of a constitutional ban on abortion, it is a constitutional guarantee of abortion at all nine months of pregnancy. Clearly if conservatives had done the opposite, and had ruled from the Supreme Court that abortion should be banned at all nine months of pregnancy, everybody would agree that this is conservative activism. Well liberals have done the opposite, hence liberal activism.

  10. DD says:

    Observer wrote:

    “Why should a woman have to submit to public opinion their right to have a medical procedure preformed?”

    Why should the unborn child submit to public opinion to have their life taken away?

    Why does it take two consentual parties to have sex…………and two responsible parties to care for a child after it is born, but during the ‘in between phase’ the man has no say?

    Why are abortions performed on full term babies?

Leave a Reply