Massachusetts

[Thud]

I always assumed that the US also valued the division of powers, i.e. religious, justicial and political.

Why the hell is Bush (through the spokesman of the WH) communicating that he is deeply worried and wants to file an amendment that reverses the whole construction?

Without discussing the issue itself, don't you think that he crossed the line when he had his puppet state: "Judges and activists keep reviewing the legal state of marriage(..)"

Don't you agree that in a modern democracy politicians shouldn't be allowed to meddle with legal affairs?

[Ripsnort]

I don't feel that activist Judges should try to circumnavigate the constitution.  They are there to uphold the law, not create it.

[ra]

Originally posted by Thud
I always assumed that the US also valued the division of powers, i.e. religious, justicial and political.

Why the hell is Bush (through the spokesman of the WH) communicating that he is deeply worried and wants to file an amendment that reverses the whole construction?

Without discussing the issue itself, don't you think that he crossed the line when he had his puppet state: "Judges and activists keep reviewing the legal state of marriage(..)"

Don't you agree that in a modern democracy politicians shouldn't be allowed to meddle with legal affairs?

Bush said

"If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."

Judges are increasingly in the habit of overriding the will of the democratically elected legislature to suit their own tastes.  Bush is indicating that he would support a constitutional amendment which would prevent judges from imposing their own definition of marriage on the rest of the country.  If laws defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman are unconstitutional, as this Massachusetts judge says, then a constitutional amendment is in order.

ra

[Ripsnort]

Forcing cultural changes in sanctities embedded in our society by judges is a no-no IMO.  And it appears my opinion on this subject would be a majority feeling...

Thirty-seven states have already passed laws or constitutional amendments banning gay nuptials, and Ohio is expected to join them within the week. Several conservative groups are already urging Congress and President Bush to pass a federal constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a heterosexual institution, thus stripping states like Massachusetts of the right to define marriage within their own borders. Bush spoke favorably of the amendment in his recent State of the Union speech, but stopped short of endorsing the measure.

[mietla]

Originally posted by Thud
Without discussing the issue itself, don't you think that he crossed the line when he had his puppet state: "Judges and activists keep reviewing the legal state of marriage(..)"

THis is a perfectry correct statement. Our Judiciary is running amok usurping power never given to them by the Constitution. The worst part is, they are getting away with it.

Don't you agree that in a modern democracy politicians shouldn't be allowed to meddle with legal affairs?

You are surely jesting. It is the legislature's (politician's) job to make the laws. And making the law is none of the Judge's business.

[Dead Man Flying]

Interesting how judicial activism seems synonymous with liberal ideology in this discussion, particularly where it applies to questions of marriage.  Do you folks really oppose judicial activism... or just when it yields outcomes with which you disagree?

Activism does not confine itself to ideology.  Scholars widely consider the Rehnquist court, for example, as following a strong activist, conservative agenda.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Interesting how judicial activism seems synonymous with liberal ideology in this discussion, particularly where it applies to questions of marriage.  Do you folks really oppose judicial activism... or just when it yields outcomes with which you disagree?

Activism does not confine itself to ideology.  Scholars widely consider the Rehnquist court, for example, as following a strong activist, conservative agenda.

-- Todd/Leviathn

You're spending too much time on the CATO institute website.

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
You're spending too much time on the CATO institute website.

Nah.  I would point anybody who's curious to work done by Jeffrey Segal and Harold Spaeth, particularly _The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model_.  

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by KUJIAZ
Perhaps it’s not a coincidence that activist judges tend to be liberal.

Or perhaps, as the preponderance of evidence suggests, judicial activism cuts both ways.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Toad]

Of course "the alternative is the Constitutional process". It was set up that way. Checks and balances anyone?

Those old guys were smart.

[Martlet]

Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
Or perhaps, as the preponderance of evidence suggests, judicial activism cuts both ways.

-- Todd/Leviathn

What evidence are you referring to?

[Eagler]

it's all good

[Dead Man Flying]

Originally posted by Martlet
What evidence are you referring to?

In particular I'm referring to data collected by Segal and Spaeth, though they have more than one distinct dataset.  Others such as Lee Epstein have also collected data coinciding with attitudinal models of judicial behavior.  I'm trying to see if I can find URL links to the data itself or at least a summarization of its contents.

Here's a link to a codebook for a dataset applying Segal and Spaeth's standards for free expression/first amendment cases.  I can't find their massive dataset of Supreme Court decisions going back to the Vinson court, but it's out there somewhere, and I'm pretty sure they make it publically available.  

It's important to note that liberal and conservative judicial activists tend to be activist on different types of issues.  Conservatives, particularly in the Rehnquist court, focus on economic and states rights issues while liberal activists tend to favor civil liberties issues.  Also, the Segal and Spaeth dataset does not come free from problems.  Most notably, they form ideological distributions based on how justices voted over a number of years on cases that may divide along liberal or conservative outcomes.  This is the same methodology employed by Poole and Rosenthal for their W-NOMINATE AND D-NOMINATE congressional ideology scores, but such methodology fails to account for strategic or non-ideological reasons for voting a particular way.  Nonetheless, we have no evidence that conservatives or liberals alone engage in exclusively strategic behavior.

I believe Isaac Unah here at UNC works on state and lower federal courts rather than just the Supreme Court.  When I was working with him, he was examining ideological behavior in international courts of trade.

-- Todd/Leviathn

[Martlet]

Judicial activism may or may not root in both camps.  I don't have information either way, and haven't been arsed to look for it.

I don't see where you have any "prepoderance of the evidence" to support your claim, though.   You suggest liberal activist judges tend to rule more on civil liberty issues, then you provide information in an attempt to support that claim.  I've yet to see the "preponderance of the evidence" to ground the same argument with conservatives.

[Frogm4n]

lol i cant believe this will end up being an issue in the next election. Hilarious. bush is just pandering to the hard core right wing voters. most americans could care less about this issue. If it dosnt affect me why should i care if two girls get married. they are not asking me to marry them.