The Bush & Company continue to wreak havoc in Washington even to the point of changing the rules to fit the situation. One of the most irksome things regards "activist judges". In that regard I love the comments made by one letter writer to the newspaper this morning.
------------------------
Editor -- I keep hearing politicians proclaim that they are against "judicial activism," and against judges "legislating from the bench" and wanting "strict constitutional" judges. I have a couple of questions:
1) Isn't overturning current policy "activism"? Wouldn't ignoring the First Amendment be "activism"? Wouldn't arguing that Americans do not have the right to sue the government over environmental policy imply support for big government over citizens' rights, which runs counter to the conservative philosophy of less government, not more?
2) What is the definition of "legislating from the bench?" It could be argued that in Brown vs. Board of Education, no specific constitutional law was being violated. Was that legislating from the bench? And if so, what would the alternative have been -- to allow separate and unequal education to continue and wait for Kansas to pass a law?
3) If the purpose of the Supreme Court is to merely rubber-stamp anything that comes out of the legislative branch, where is the check to balance congressional power?
I do not have sufficient information to approve or disapprove of the latest candidate for our highest court, but I feel that asking questions is not only appropriate, but required.
----------------
And to that I can only say Amen.