This article offers further discussion. How it compares to other circuit courts, I don’t know.
I’d guess, based on having read a hell of a lot of them, that roughly 1/3rd of the Supreme Court’s opinions are unanimous. May I suggest that you do the counting yourself rather than relying on some comment by a random law professor?
I don’t really have a dog in this fight, so I’m not all that interested in doing a lot of work either. Nor was I suggesting that you should or even that you would want to. My point in posting what I did was that I thought I saw people who DID have a dog in this fight chasing the wrong angle. My suggestion was that they, not you, might want to pursue the angle of “unanimous reversals” rather than just “reversals”.
When the best a Berkeley Law School professor can say about an obviously liberal activist court is that it’s “not bad” you’re looking at an institution with problems.
And the 9th Circuit is “activist.” I have a huge problem with this in general, and I don’t care which political direction the decisions go. They subvert the legislation process in this country. Judges are just supposed to interpret the law as written by legislative bodies, not create it themselves. Yes, they do have the authority to “create” law in cases where no applicable law exists, but that’s not what they’re doing in these cases.
Then you get pushback. Those of you who are decrying the results of the gay marriage referrenda in eleven states need look no farther than the courts in Massachusetts for the culprit. While I applauded the end result there I hated the method. There was no legislative action or voter approval involved, just a bunch of judges deciding that they knew what was best for everyone, and that sort of imperiousness (is that a word?) pisses people off.
The proof is in the pudding. A hell of a lot of people voted to prevent pompous jackasses in robes from cramming something controversial down their throats. I think they voted the wrong way, but I don’t see the results of the refferenda as a condemnation of gay people so much as the people telling said jackasses, “shut up and sit down, and let us decide the way we’re supposed to.”
That always happens, but dumbfuck judges keep doing the same thing anyway.
Kinda of like blaming the NAACP or the deciding courts for the murder of Freedom Riders, as far as I can see. The role of a court is to determine cases brought before them. Exactly what the MA Supreme Court did. You might have more (not much more) of a case if you talked about who brought the case, but I don’t feel comfortable telling people to sit at the back of the bus longer (or not get on the bus at all) because of a fear of what other people might think.
What will of course be more interesting is if any of these state amendments get overturned under Romer. Not ruling on cases or controversies in the way they felt the state or federal constitution required would be a good example of ‘dumbfuck judges’ IMHO.
Wouldn’t a better set of numbers (not that I have any intention of calculating it) look at the number of cases from each circuti petitioning the court for cert, and how many of those were rejected, and by what margins, and for what reasons. I guess calculating that should keep you busy until the next election…
Not necessarily. You are assuming that Berkeley = Liberal. You’d really have to look at that particular professor’s point of view before drawing any conclusions from it, and even then just because one “liberal” said something negative about some supposedly liberal court’s results doesn’t necessarily mean there is a problem with that court.
Leaving aside the whole same-sex marriage canard, as it has been discussed to death in many other threads and the upshot is that making excuses for hetero-supremacy by pointing fingers at the people demanding their rights is disgusting, I just want to point out that the expression is “the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”
I’m not sure what to say to you villa, because you didn’t really address my point. The case you cite isn’t really parallel.
I’m sorry, John, but “Berkely” does equal “liberal,” and if you believe otherwise you are in denial.
Hell, I’ve seen people on this board try to make the claim that Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, and all the rest of the talking heads on the alphabet networks have a conservative bias, which is just stupid. People who think that way make Joe Stalin look like John Birch.
Do you think Chris Matthews is a moderate? Fox News is much too far to the right for my taste, but I’m glad they’re in the boat, because everybody else is furiously paddling in the other direction.
By the same token, if you think alternate political views are ever welcome at Berkely, you need to sit down, take a deep breath, and consider who’s “dissent” is being “stifled.”
Or is it “crushed?” I forget.
Knock yourself out. Note as well that we don’t know either the votes or the reasons for denial of certiorari, except in the rare instance where one or more justices make their opinion known by dissenting from the denial of review.
Don’t be a jackass, Otto. I only offered up the “gay-marriage” thing as an example of how judicial activism can backfire. I’m all in favor of gay marriage.
In fact, I don’t see why the government needs to be involved in marriage at all. It’s a covenant between two people, and they should be allowed to invoke a “higher power” or not, as they see fit.
I do not recognizee government as a higher power than my fellow citizens, and I don’t think any legal distinction should be made between married citizens and singles.
Let’s treat everybody equally.
Then how do you explain the Boalt Hall Federalist Society? Or Professor John Yoo?
Now I know why this thread is in the Pit. It’s so I can call you a dumbass.
Man, I wish I had a pair of sunglasses like the ones you’ve got. Such a lovely shade of pink!
Those eleven referendums had nothing to do with judicial activism, and everything to do with straight America gettin’ its hate-on for the queers. True, the issue would never have come up for a vote if it hadn’t been for Massachusetts and San Francisco, but what got people into the voting booths was a rejection of the idea that the ideals of freedom and equality might get applied to homosexuals. If it were just a reaction to judicial activism, those voters would have been just as likely to vote in favor of legalizing gay marriage. That, too, would have put a stop to those be-robed, imperious jackasses, without spitting in the face of approximetly 1/10th of the population of the United States.
Perhaps because our reactionary-activist Supreme Court has the most bones to pick with the circuit that decides the most cases on their merits instead of through a Scalia/Rehnquist ideological prism? That’s equally plausible, on the surface at least, ain’t it?
Let me get this straight. Are you claiming that EVERY law professor at Berkeley is a liberal? EVERY ONE OF THEM? If so, I’d like to see a cite to prove that.
Look, I suspect that the majority of the professors at Berkeley would fall into the “liberal” category. And I say suspect on purpose, because I really don’t know. I’m just going on reputation. But it’s just idiotic to assume that every professor there is a liberal.
Anyway, this particular discussion is idiotic, so I’ll let you go ahead and believe anything you want.
The case I cited was the use of the federal constitution by the Supreme Court to overturn a state law that was seen to have no basis other than animus to homosexuals. I think that is a direct parallel. Unfortunately I doubt the Supreme Court will apply the same analysis, but I am interested to see how they avoid it (unless it is by refusing to take the case, which appears tobe the route you are suggesting non-‘dumfuck judges’ should take).
Ooh, I think I know this one. It’s because they hear the most cases, right?
From what I’ve seen, i.e. his pre- and post-debate panel coverage, I’d say he leans conservative.
What are you watching, dude? If there’s a liberal news network out there, I need to get Comcast on the phone right away, 'cause I sure don’t receive that channel.
Does Berkeley have a nice campus? I’ve thought about going there, and since you seem to be an expert on the place, maybe you could give me some more information. When did you attend - or were you a faculty member?
As Al Yankovic once sang, you’ve got to dare to be stupid. And responding to a hijack is stupid. So what the hey.
I don’t know about the aforementioned gentlemen’s personal biases, but I know what the news coverage in general looks like. I know how the “liberal media” kept the Love Canal/Love Story/Internet ‘Gore=Liar’ meme going in the 2000 campaign, while ignoring massive whoppers of untruths by his opponent. I know how they buried stories including evidence for the case against invading Iraq on page A-18, while giving front-page coverage to every time when Cheney said Saddam had nukes. I know how each time the SwiftLiars came up with a new allegation this past August, the “liberal media” would treat it like they and Kerry were on equal footing, deserving of an equal hearing, no matter how many previous SwiftLiar claims had already been shot down. I know that I was watching the TV coverage of Bush’s inauguration on January 20, 2001, but I didn’t see the footage of Bush’s limo being pelted with eggs that day until watching Fahrenheit 9/11 in the summer of 2004. Why would those “liberals” hide that from me? Maybe because they aren’t so liberal after all?
Just a hunch.
That’s just to let you know that the case for a not-so-liberal media ain’t that stupid. If you really want a full-scale debate, feel free to C&P my post into a quote in a new OP, and respond to it there to get the debate going. I’ll show up.
Look, Bricker’s crusade aside, there’s a big difference between activism and social engineering.
Granted, some of the 9th Circuit’s decisions are way beyond any semblance of logic or basis in the law. Big deal; I can cite cases from most of the federal appeals courts matching that description.
Even if you believe that they have been putting philosophy before the law, the backlash has little to do with jurisprudence and everything to do with politics. The decisions don’t sit well with people, so they bitch.