Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
EDITORIAL: Clear example of an 'activist' judge
Need a definition for the term "activist judge"? His name is Judge Lawrence Karlton.
IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are engaged in confirmation hearings for Judge John Roberts' nomination as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The dispute, deep down, is over whether it is appropriate for judges to be "activist" on hot-button political issues.
But just what does that term, activist, mean?
A timely example comes from - where else? - San Francisco. In that most Left Coast of all cities, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton has ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in public schools, because it includes the "under God" phrase.
WAIT A MINUTE. Didn't the Supreme Court deal with that issue already?
Not quite. Atheist Michael Newdow brought a federal lawsuit, which the high court dodged last year by tossing out the case on the grounds that Newdow did not have "standing" to pursue his case. Newdow filed on behalf of his daughter, but his ex-wife had legal custody of the child. So Newdow re-filed his case, on behalf of three other sets of parents and children. That was good enough for Judge Karlton, who clearly did not read the go-away signal sent earlier by the Supreme Court justices.
Karlton's ruling likely will be upheld by the nation's most liberal court, the Ninth Circuit, which, after all, sent the first Pledge case to the nation's highest tribunal. The Supreme Court cannot dodge Newdow forever.
MOST AMERICANS, we'd wager, find this all a tedious waste of time - just the sort of nonsense to amuse hair-splitting lawyers. Most people would leave it up to schools and parents. Say the Pledge? Don't say the Pledge? Opt out of the Pledge on parental direction?
Not exactly an issue of crucial national significance.
But that's what has happened to the court system in recent decades. No matter is too large or too small for "activist" judges to impose their will - not the people's, not the legislatures' - on the lives of Americans. Particularly, these judges' courts have become the preferred venue for wacky advocates of silly causes who know full well their views will never fly within the democratic process governed by political consensus.
This is what Judge Roberts and supporters of his view of the Constitution mean when they look unfavorably upon "activist" judicial roles. Roberts vows to be a restrained and modest judge. Sounds pretty good.
IN THE NATION'S CAPITAL, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are engaged in confirmation hearings for Judge John Roberts' nomination as chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The dispute, deep down, is over whether it is appropriate for judges to be "activist" on hot-button political issues.
But just what does that term, activist, mean?
A timely example comes from - where else? - San Francisco. In that most Left Coast of all cities, U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton has ruled the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional in public schools, because it includes the "under God" phrase.
WAIT A MINUTE. Didn't the Supreme Court deal with that issue already?
Not quite. Atheist Michael Newdow brought a federal lawsuit, which the high court dodged last year by tossing out the case on the grounds that Newdow did not have "standing" to pursue his case. Newdow filed on behalf of his daughter, but his ex-wife had legal custody of the child. So Newdow re-filed his case, on behalf of three other sets of parents and children. That was good enough for Judge Karlton, who clearly did not read the go-away signal sent earlier by the Supreme Court justices.
Karlton's ruling likely will be upheld by the nation's most liberal court, the Ninth Circuit, which, after all, sent the first Pledge case to the nation's highest tribunal. The Supreme Court cannot dodge Newdow forever.
MOST AMERICANS, we'd wager, find this all a tedious waste of time - just the sort of nonsense to amuse hair-splitting lawyers. Most people would leave it up to schools and parents. Say the Pledge? Don't say the Pledge? Opt out of the Pledge on parental direction?
Not exactly an issue of crucial national significance.
But that's what has happened to the court system in recent decades. No matter is too large or too small for "activist" judges to impose their will - not the people's, not the legislatures' - on the lives of Americans. Particularly, these judges' courts have become the preferred venue for wacky advocates of silly causes who know full well their views will never fly within the democratic process governed by political consensus.
This is what Judge Roberts and supporters of his view of the Constitution mean when they look unfavorably upon "activist" judicial roles. Roberts vows to be a restrained and modest judge. Sounds pretty good.
 |
||
| On this date... |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of beloitdailynews.com.
Submit a Comment
Login below to post your comment. |
Not yet a member? Use the form below to register. |
