Conservatives: What, in your opinion, is an "activist" judge? Just one that makes a ruling you disagree with?

Or is there more to it than that? I notice that every time judges have increased the civil liberies of minority groups, whether it be allowing interacial marriages, forbidding housing discrimination, or the recent gay marriage ruling in California, you have opposed the decision and labeled the judges "activist". But in each of these cases, all the judges have done is to state that the minority group in question are allowed the same rights as you under the Constitution. Is that so threatening to you? Can't blacks and gays win without (in your mind) whites "losing"? Or do you believe that somebody's gotta win, and somebody's gotta lose, so if they win you must have lost?

It is not a Judges responsibility to make civil liberties. Why didn't the supreme court emancipate the slaves, Why didn't a judge make a ruling you can sit at the front of a bus regardless of color. Why didn't a judge give women the right to vote.

This is a recent development were judges have become lawmakers .

That is the meaning of an activist Judge.

This is dangerous since Judges are not elected. Congress has the right to legislate not Judges. If you want new liberties get congress to pass a bill into law and have the president sign it. Then a judge can decide if it is constitutional.

Lets say McCain is president and appoints two more Conservatives and they decide everyone must have a gun in their home. Or Everyone has to go to a church every week.

Well that why the constitution is written with a narrow focus for Judges and the precedent is one that make the Judges more and more powerful.

lucador

Brown v Board did make segeration illegal on the grounds of being unconstitional. The Judges are forced to do something when Congress and the President do nothing. Activist judges also made interracial marriage legal too since NO ONE in Congress was doing a thing about it.

First of all, tell us what you consider to be the duties of a Judge, regardless of the court where he presently sits. If you have that answer, then you know what the " activist judge " is doing. His job is to interpret not make laws.

One that makes a ruling with the liberal agenda in mind.

In my opinion judges should be bipartisan and not supportive of any party's agenda.

The only case I've ever heard anyone labeled an "activist judge" (and rightfully so I believe) was Judge Edward Cashman, when he sentenced a child rapist to 60 days in jail so he could have his "disease" treated immediately.

I don't care if gays get married, but when you force a private organization like a church to conduct marriage rituals for gays (probably through a court ruling), you're stepping over the line. That, I believe, is what most conservatives are worried about. THAT, would be an activist court ruling.

Do I think gays want to disrespect the religious community by forcing such a ruling? Probably not. But it would be foolhearty to underestimate any agenda.

And to answer your last question, there are always winners and losers.