.jpg)
Judicial activism is one of the cornerstones of the Right Wing rhetoric. Roberts actually bought into it and defers to the legislative process over interpretation by the court on constitutional grounds. In actuality, it is the only way the Right Wing agenda will hold up. Think North Dakota abortion, except, we already have Roe v. Wade.
It is malpractice. Roberts practices politics under the guise of judicial activism. Looks as though they have a real membership push on, too. It is needless to say Heritage could become useless in the real world.
In a law review article, (click here) Sonia Sotomayor said our society would be straight-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial, and political changes. Instead of interpreting the law in a fair and equal manner, it seems Judge Sotomayor thinks it is not only appropriate, but beneficial to society, for judges to legislate from the bench.
Americas Founding Fathers had a vision for the judicial branch, and it consisted of an impartial court system with judges who interpret, not make, law. They left the legislating function to the elected branch of government Congress. Yet, some judges have used their role on the court to push their own agenda, whether that be on marriage, race, international law, or the second amendment. And Judge Sotomayor is no exception.
John V. Orth is a right wing author on the
subject. He was probably consulted on Amendment One in North Carolina.
John V. Orth (click here) is the William
Rand Kenan Jr. Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. He earned his A.B. (1969) at Oberlin College, and then proceeded to acquire a J.D. (1974), M.A. (1975), and PhD (1977) at Harvard University. Professor Orth is also an accomplished author. Due Process of Law at Amazon (click here) |
