Activist Judges

Activist judge definition: a judge that makes a decision I don't agree with. But seriously folks...

As I understand it, there's a process to all of this.
A person or group of people are involved in a local trial. The judge/jury decides against them. They still think they are in the right, so they appeal. This goes to a higher court where a judge/jury will hear the case and either uphold the lower court's decision or reverse it. Their decision is based on the interpretation of the law in question and the state's constitution. The defendant/plantiff can possibly continue the process of appeals up to the Supreme Court. Each higher court can decide not to hear the case. If it gets that far, the Supreme Court will decide if the ruling is constitutional.


The executive administration does things that are unconstitutional all the time. Our legislature (local and federal) makes unconstitutional laws all the time. The people vote for things that are unconstitutional all the time. The only branch of government we can really count on to protect our rights and privileges is the judicial branch. That's the only place where you, as an individual, can secure your rights against the majority.

To me, a perfect judge ensures a decision is in line with the constitution; despite what the majority (congress and the president) thinks. The problem is figuring out if the constitution should be interpreted as the founders would have; or should the judge factor in current culture. I think the constitution is a 'timeless' document (living constitution) that can be interpreted to secure the rights of the people with the current culture in mind. Logically, there are some things that we are dealing with now that the founders couldn't have fathomed.

As I research, apparently that makes me an opponent of judicial restraint; which is defined as upholding the law even if it does violate the rights of the plantiff/defendant. Apparently, if a law isn't glaringly unconstitutional, then the court is supposed to uphold the law.
I am a proponent of judicial activism. Since culture has changed a lot since the constitution was written, some cases don't allow for a strict interpretation of the constitution. It's still apparent that a right has been violated in some way.

Some define an activist judge as someone who legislates from the bench.
Or someone who makes decisions based on their personal ideology; disregarding the constitution, precedence, or law.


I think Habeas Corpus and the 2nd amendment are pretty clear cut. I agree with the court's decision in both cases.

If the people don't like it then they need to change the constitution; making sure it's in line with the rest of the constitution or else it's just going to be repealed later.

New American Imperialism

Looks a little something like this...

There's a country that has a resource you want. You talk to the leader and see if you can negotiate some sort of covert control over that resource.

That leader (or their successor) decides they don't want to negotiate anymore.

You become friendly with the rebels or other countries that are enemies to this leader.
You give them money, weapons, training. They overthrow the uncooperative leader.
You insert a leader that is in line with your wishes. Or you tolerate the rebel leader as long as they don't interfere with your control.

Or some country decides to invade another or a leader becomes too tyrannical
We offer to help the people resist. We build training camps, bases, whatever we need.
Then we win, then we stay. Then they get pissed at us and we have to get rid of them