# Judicial activism and conservative judges **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 1, 2005, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835 "2005-11-01T01:34:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/81 "2005-11-01T22:31:57Z")
> [@treis](#): > > The point is that if the Supreme Court started going bonkers they still don’t have any power to enforce their rulings. Of course this is a last resort and will cause problems but its still a check on judicial power. The Supreme Court is not stupid nor is it blind. It can see this truth and won’t make a ruling that will meet serious opposition from a large majority of the people. In that way its another check on the “activism” of the Judiciary. Yes, and if they make wildly unpopular rulings, people may be more likely to plan assassinations of Supreme Court Justices. That’s not correctly counted as a “check” either. The question is what checks the system places on them, not what extra-legal consequences may result. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/82 "2005-11-01T22:43:21Z")
> [@treis](#): > > The point is that if the Supreme Court started going bonkers they still don’t have any power to enforce their rulings. Of course this is a last resort and will cause problems but its still a check on judicial power. Well, I suppose you could see it that way. Are you saying that you consider this a legitimate check on judicial power? And that you support its use? And suppose the executive branch tried to abide by its duty and enforce the ruling. What actions would you recommend be taken by the states who decline to accept the ruling? Armed resistance? Secession? Standing in the school house dorr? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/83 "2005-11-01T22:43:32Z")
> [@treis](#): > > The point is that if the Supreme Court started going bonkers they still don’t have any power to enforce their rulings. Of course this is a last resort and will cause problems but its still a check on judicial power. Well, I suppose you could see it that way. Are you saying that you consider this a legitimate check on judicial power? And that you support its use? And suppose the executive branch tried to abide by its duty and enforce the ruling. What actions would you recommend be taken by the states who decline to accept the ruling? Armed resistance? Secession? Standing in the school house door? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/84 "2005-11-01T22:44:33Z")
> [@SuaSponte](#): > > I think you overstate. It is at least an open question whether _Marbury_ was a result the writers of the constitution intended. Given that there experience was derived from England, where the Courts were certainly subservient to the Parliament, that is by no means a given. Jefferson certainly was appalled by _Marbury_ (and yes, I know, Jefferson was not actually a writer of the Constitution). > > Sua It is an “open question” only because it was not directly answered. And, as Professor Tribe puts it, it may not be a corallary to the grant of power in the Constitution, but it not an argument against the postulation of that grant of power that it is not a corallary. In my opinion, the alternate assertion, that Congress should be its own check upon constitutionality of its laws, has a much less strong case for it to be made from the inherent conflict that exists when the Court ends up having to rule in a case where a potentially unconstitutional law is presented to it. In general, the best argument to make against the determination made in _Marbury_ is to assert that it isn’t explicitly in the Constitution. But, if we limit ourselves in that fashion, there are any number of difficulties inherent in the document that would force us to approach the idea of amending it with much more liberality. Given how that has played out in a state like California, I suggest we should prefer at least some filling of the unstated intersticies with well-reasoned conclusions drawn from the assumptions which are explicitly laid out in the document. ---
**Author:** ![DSYoungEsq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c6cbf5/32.png) [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/85 "2005-11-01T22:45:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, I suppose you could see it that way. > > Are you saying that you consider this a legitimate check on judicial power? And that you support its use? > > And suppose the executive branch tried to abide by its duty and enforce the ruling. What actions would you recommend be taken by the states who decline to accept the ruling? Armed resistance? Secession? Standing in the school house door? > > Regards, > Shodan Amazingly enough, when President Jackson refused to accept the determination of the Supreme Court regarding a National Bank, we didn’t suddenly stop working as a nation and fall into the sea. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/86 "2005-11-01T23:10:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, and if they make wildly unpopular rulings, people may be more likely to plan assassinations of Supreme Court Justices. > > That’s not correctly counted as a “check” either. The question is what checks the system places on them, not what extra-legal consequences may result. Look if you want to debate then debate my entire post. You asked for what would restrain judicary power and I gave you three checks on the power. Unless you can show that all of the things I cited are impotent then the debate is already over. One restraint on judicial power is all that is necessary to meet the criteria of restrainng judicial power. > [@Shodan](#): > > Well, I suppose you could see it that way. > > Are you saying that you consider this a legitimate check on judicial power? And that you support its use? Legitimate in what way? Do I think its legitimate to just ignore the Supreme Court when you don’t like what they say, no. Do I think that the Supreme Court lacking power to enforce a ruling is a check on its power then yes. Its a check for gross violations of judicial power but not one suitable for minor violations. The country can survive (and has survived) ignoring the Supreme Court when it makes a ruling that is anathema to a large majority of the population. Obviously if the Court is passing many rulings that are vigorously opposed by the population you either need to change those Court rulings somehow or you will have a revolution on your hands. > [@Shodan](#): > > And suppose the executive branch tried to abide by its duty and enforce the ruling. What actions would you recommend be taken by the states who decline to accept the ruling? Armed resistance? Secession? Standing in the school house dorr? Assuming we are talking about a wildly unpopular ruling that the executive is enforcing then you have tyranny on your hands. Let me go ahead and preempt a response, I think armed resistance/secession for gay marriage/slavery/racism wrong on the basis of the reason for the justificaiton of secession. In other words, I support a people revolting against a government that is objectionable to the vast majority of citizens but I do not view Slavery/Gay Marriage/Racism as acceptable reasons to be opposed to a government. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/87 "2005-11-01T23:25:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > But why, then, is textualism better than stare decisis? Because when we approach an issue of first impression, we face the same questions we would otherwise. So far as I know, no one has ever tried to sue as a next friend on behalf of an unborn child, asking the federal government to recognize his due process right to life. That would be an issue of first impression; stare decisis won’t help us. > > So how should judges rule? I’d like to see a bench of pro-lifers, and I want to see Roe overturned, but I’d recoil in horror at a finding that a fetus has due process rights. I would disagree for three reasons. _First_, I deny that _stare decisis_ would have any more difficulty facing an issue of first impression than would textualism. Other common law jurisdictions have to face issues of first impression all the time without the crutch of a written constitution to guide them, and they do fine. A _stare decisis_ driven court would simply apply principles established in other contexts to determine the proper result. In your example, my Court would come to the same conclusion that your Court would - no due process rights for a fetus. _Second_, what I have never seen a textualist address - in all fairness, because I’ve never seen them asked - is how they would deal with the practical effect of a textualist judicial culture. A very large chunk of a hundred years of precedent (or more - I believe that at least some decisions from the first supreme court on were not “textualist”) would be at risk. There would be a long period of uncertainty in the law as precedents are overturned. During the process, the validity of laws would be in doubt, contracts would be in question, etc., etc. _Third_, the risk is that the uncertainty wouldn’t end there. Textualism is not an exact science. I’ve read enough law review articles in which lawyers and professors with a textualist POV come down on different sides of the issue. Given the inherent disrespect for precedent in textualism, a textualist Supreme Court would be more willing to overturn a precedent set by an earlier textualist Court with which they disagree. More uncertainty in the law, and more attendant problems. In my mind, _stare decisis_ jurisprudence is “muddling through.” It recognizes that we are not going to get everything right, but rather than bog ourselves down in (usually) partisan and ultimately navel-gazing disputes over what the true and proper result should have been, we just keep moving forward, pausing only to correct those decisions that we as a society come to recognize simply do not work. And we plow forward with the recognition that, at least in the legal world, we can anticipate what the rules are and will be. Sua ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2005, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/88 "2005-11-01T23:43:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > AGAIN: “overturning the law” has NOTHING TO DO WITH “ACTIVISM.” > > Zero. > > The only question is: on what BASIS was the law overturned. There is no reason to suppose a high number means anything. There is no reason to suppose a low number means anything. I can imagine a judge that has voted to overturn laws 100% of the time not being activist; I can imagine a judge upholding laws 100% of the time BEING activist. > > The question is: what is the rationale applied? > > Congress passes a law requiring printed material that criticizes the President to be submitted to a special committee before publication. The ACLU sues, and Judge A upholds the law. > > Judge A is an ACTIVIST JUDGE, even though he’s not voting to overturn a law. > > Get it? Great…Then you ought to be able to just reel off **real life examples** from amongst those cases studied by the folks in that op-ed where the activist approach is the one that votes not to overturn the law and the non-activist approach is the one that votes to overturn the law. Because in order to account for the statistics that we see, there are going to have to be oodles of such cases…particularly to make up for the reverse situation that seems to get so much press. Look, you may have a case here…but you sure as hell are not making it at the moment. The fact is that in the **real world** as opposed to the SDMB, activist judges are generally considered by those who complain about them to be those who tend to strike down laws passed by legislatures on the basis of some right purportedly found in the Constitution that the conservatives doing the complaining believe is not there. I am sure it would be easy to find oodles of quotes to this effect. Now, you are trying to claim that, actually, in the world of the Supreme Court, the activist decision is much more often to let the law stand and the non-activist position is to overturn it. That sounds pretty fishy to me…but I am willing to be convinced that it is at least plausible if, say, almost all of the cases involving the overturning of Congressional laws involved fights between Congress and the states. However, you do need to provide **some sort of compelling explanation for these statistics** and not just some contrived example. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/89 "2005-11-02T00:06:44Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Now, you are trying to claim that, actually, in the world of the Supreme Court, the activist decision is much more often to let the law stand and the non-activist position is to overturn it. That sounds pretty fishy to me…but I am willing to be convinced that it is at least plausible if, say, almost all of the cases involving the overturning of Congressional laws involved fights between Congress and the states. However, you do need to provide **some sort of compelling explanation for these statistics** and not just some contrived example. \*\*Bricker \*\*is right that you can’t just look at raw numnbers. But if that’s all you are willing to do, a better case would be made if you looked at how often State Laws were overturned. A non-activist federal judge will be much more deferential to the State Legislatures than to the Federal Congress, since the constutition places more restrictions on the latter than the former. Note that \*Roe \*falls in that category. But even that type of analysis would be sloppy. Without looking at a case by case basis, the raw numbers are just that-- raw numbers. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/90 "2005-11-02T00:20:11Z")
To a large degree, **John** , I agree with you. The raw numbers are certainly not sufficient. However, they do, in my view, throw the burden of proof onto those who are trying to claim that conservative judges are less activist. I.e., I think they demand that those who claim to be against judicial activism explain the curious fact that the judges that they consider the most activist have voted to overturn Congress least often and those who they consider the least activist have voted to overturn Congress far more often. Indeed, there may be a great explanation, in which case I would strongly recommend that the person who finds it here submit a counter-op-ed explaining why the criterion used in that op-ed for identifying activism was so poor that it actually has **a significant negative correlation to true judicial activism as they see it**. That would be most interesting to see and I await it with baited breath! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/91 "2005-11-02T00:21:53Z")
> [@jshore](#): > > Now, you are trying to claim that, actually, in the world of the Supreme Court, the activist decision is much more often to let the law stand and the non-activist position is to overturn it. NO!!! I’m not claiming that at all. It’s true that I offered one example of this, but that’s not the point of my claim at all. I’m telling you there is NO CONNECTION between “overturning a law” and “activism.” I think, if you’ll review my prior posts, that I’ve said a couple of dozen times that it all depends on what the rationale of the judicial decision is. Here: Congress passes a law making searches of people on federal highways legal with no probable cause. Judges overturn law. NOT ACTIVIST. Law violates the text of the Fourth Amendment. Congress passes a law authorizing death by flaying for the crime of making terroristic threats. Judge overturns. NOT ACTIVIST. Law violates the text of the Eighth Amendment. Congress passes a law requiring credit card companies to manage risk by limiting the sub-par to par ratio of account holders they have. Judge overturns it. ACTIVIST. Because judge cites the due processs clause as evidence that credit is a civil right and must be uniformly avaliable to all people. Are you with me yet? Overturning or upholding a law means nothing with regard to activism. The only criteria is: does the rationale for the decision comport with the text of the law, or is it found in some emanation, penumbra, or other unwritten extension of the law? WHAT IS THE JUDGE’S DECISION GROUNDED IN? That’s the only question that addresses activism. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/92 "2005-11-02T00:28:57Z")
> [@treis](#): > > Look if you want to debate then debate my entire post. You asked for what would restrain judicary power and I gave you three checks on the power. Unless you can show that all of the things I cited are impotent then the debate is already over. One restraint on judicial power is all that is necessary to meet the criteria of restrainng judicial power. Um… no. If a restraint cannot be used except by total breakdown of the system, then it’s not suitable for this discussion. It’s as though you ask what restraints there are for cheating spouses, and I offered up the possibility of being murdered by an cuckholded spouse. If the remedy is only one of last resort, and its use indicates the destruction of the entire system, then it has failed. > [@](#): > > Legitimate in what way? Do I think its legitimate to just ignore the Supreme Court when you don’t like what they say, no. Do I think that the Supreme Court lacking power to enforce a ruling is a check on its power then yes. Its a check for gross violations of judicial power but not one suitable for minor violations. The country can survive (and has survived) ignoring the Supreme Court when it makes a ruling that is anathema to a large majority of the population. Obviously if the Court is passing many rulings that are vigorously opposed by the population you either need to change those Court rulings somehow or you will have a revolution on your hands. Sure, the country survived such a situation in the early nineteenth century, when it was very diffferent from today. Federal power as a whole was much weaker; the states were more autonomous. If, today, the Court ruled that the Ten Commandments couldn’t be posted outside federal buildings, and President Bush said, “John Roberts has made his decision, now let us see him enforce it,” we’d be in collapse; a constitutional crisis. ---
**Author:** ![Gadarene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e47c2d/32.png) [@Gadarene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gadarene)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/93 "2005-11-02T00:29:26Z")
**Bricker:** > [@](#): > > What I’m arguing for is a judicial culture of textualism. You’re right – it would not create any real, enforceable limit on power. But it would create a strong culture of deference to the written word that does not now exist. That culture would be of great force in inhibiting an individual rouge from having any effect, since he would know that his attempts to reason outside the text of the law would be swiftly reversed by his fellows. This was Scalia’s argument in favor of legal formalism in one of his earlier essays – he said that the realists fucked everything up by openly admitting that the interpretation of constitutional provisions, statutes, and common law precedent was not merely a matter of mechanistic application. All the good judges, Scalia said, already knew that the law was essentially indeterminate, yet had the intellectual chops to deal with the ambiguous cases in a sophisticated and fluid manner. Shouting about the law’s indeterminacy from the rooftops, as the realists did, would confuse and confound the mediocre judges (for whom the security of law’s predictability would disappear) while emboldening the legislature to be less heedful of constitutional constraints when passing laws (as they would assume that an active and aware judiciary, not naturally inclined to legislative deference would catch their mistakes). It’s a Machiavellian theory; see the Farber and Sherry book for a more detailed treatment. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/94 "2005-11-02T00:41:05Z")
It is clear that friend **Bricker** has given the definition of “activist judge” far more attention and complex thought than any of the rest of us have, could, or would. I haven’t, I’m not sure I can, but I"m _real_ sure I don’t want to. So I propose the following, by acclamation and _stark staring deceased is_, we declare **Bricker** Official SDMB Arbiter of “activist judges”: having sole authority over the definition and application of said term in all situations where such a definition might be useful. Should such an occasion arise. Said designation will be accepted without demur or complaint, and no explanation will be required. What say ye? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/95 "2005-11-02T01:01:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Um… no. > > If a restraint cannot be used except by total breakdown of the system, then it’s not suitable for this discussion. It’s as though you ask what restraints there are for cheating spouses, and I offered up the possibility of being murdered by an cuckholded spouse. If the remedy is only one of last resort, and its use indicates the destruction of the entire system, then it has failed. To use your analogy, I also offered up divorce, counseling, seperation and murder as options but you have focused on the last resort of murder. I even disagree with the executive not enforcing the ruling as a breakdown of the system. If I had said the population could rebel and throw the Justices off the court then that would be outside the system. The executive declining to enforce the ruling is a part of the system just as Congress refusing to fund a military adventure is, although I would agree that its an extreme measure. Either way, there are plenty of checks within the system such as the other 3 I mentioned. I believe you conceded that impeachment is a restraint, that is the only process that could stop Bush tommorow if he decided to go bonkers. Certainly Bush could do a lot more damage in three years than a renegade Supreme Court Justice could in a lifetime. Why is impeachment enough of a safeguard against presidents but not against Justices? In addition it seems we have dropped amending the constitution from the debate and never addressed that Justices are appointed by an elected official and confirmed by another elected body. I will go ahead and add another on top of those, you need 5 Justices to make a ruling so its not a matter of one renegade Justice its a matter of 5. > [@Bricker](#): > > Sure, the country survived such a situation in the early nineteenth century, when it was very diffferent from today. Federal power as a whole was much weaker; the states were more autonomous. > > If, today, the Court ruled that the Ten Commandments couldn’t be posted outside federal buildings, and President Bush said, “John Roberts has made his decision, now let us see him enforce it,” we’d be in collapse; a constitutional crisis. I disagree, there is no way that the populace would enraged seriously enough to consider rebelling to enforce the ruling. The country would not divide nor would the constitution be torn up. What would happen is that Bush would be under extreme pressure to enforce the ruling and possibly face impeachment. At worst in 3 years a canidate that is committed to enforcing the ruling would be elected. If the populace didn’t care enough to do any of those three things then they certainly wouldn’t care enough to plunge the country into a constitutionl crisis. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/96 "2005-11-02T01:11:33Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > \So I propose the following, by acclamation and _stark staring deceased is_, we declare **Bricker** Official SDMB Arbiter of “activist judges”: having sole authority over the definition and application of said term in all situations where such a definition might be useful. Should such an occasion arise. > > Said designation will be accepted without demur or complaint, and no explanation will be required. > > What say ye? It sounds good… The problem is, if hemention a certain gay rights ruling, then under the defintion offered, he couldn’t use the term to apply to it, as he has described it here. ---
**Author:** ![Raja\_Raja\_Chola](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e480ec/32.png) [@Raja\_Raja\_Chola](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Raja_Raja_Chola)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/97 "2005-11-02T01:12:03Z")
There are also other restraints on judicial power. Congress has the ability to alter the size of the courts or restructure them completely, as when Congress created the DC Circuit. Congress can also exercise its exception power. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/98 "2005-11-02T01:19:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, at least you didn’t suggest “legislation” and then instantly back-peddle. 😉 > > But less frivolously, I still wonder at the suggestion about “lack of enforcement powers”. Are you seriously suggesting that it would be legitimate for one state to simply ignore a Supreme Court ruling with which it disagreed? I seem to remember some unpleasantness on the subject in the Deep South some forty years back. I am a little taken aback by the notion that those people in white sheets were simply exercising their rights to disagree with the Supreme Court. > > Please understand that I am not accusing you of being sympathetic to their cause. Just a bit surprised at the offering of an opt-out clause to, say, gay marriage or abortion or one of the other new “rights” I keep hearing are there already. > > Regards, > Shodan There is in fact an outstandingly good answer to this, founded in an obnoxious precedent about 170 years old. And I suggest we all sit back and let **Liberal** give it. Because, he, more than anyone else here, has been directly affected by it. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/99 "2005-11-02T01:45:22Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > NO!!! > > I’m not claiming that at all. It’s true that I offered one example of this, but that’s not the point of my claim at all. > > I’m telling you there is NO CONNECTION between “overturning a law” and “activism.” I think, if you’ll review my prior posts, that I’ve said a couple of dozen times that it all depends on what the rationale of the judicial decision is. Okay, let me rephrase what I said: Now, you are trying to claim something that would seem (in light of the conclusions of the study that started this thread) to imply that, actually, in the world of the Supreme Court, the activist decision is more often to let Congress’s law stand and the non-activist position is to overturn it. That is, assuming that you agree that Souter, Stevens, Ginsberg, and Breyer are more activist than Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas. (This last was an implicit assumption of my statement, so please correct me if I am wrong and you do not believe this.) ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2005, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835/100 "2005-11-02T03:13:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Madison’s commentary on the issue: I thought you were a textualist. Seems to me the 9th Amendment is pretty clear on its own. Hell, even Madison himself said: "“As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution,the debates and incidental decisions of the Convention can have no authoritative character.” Not only that, you completely misunderstand the quote, putting it forward to support a position it was never meant to support. Madison is saying that there are rights, rights not enshrined in the Bill of Rights, that exist and should be protected. > [@Madison](#): > > It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution. And this supports your position how? Hell, even one of the scholars, Thomas McAfee, who supports this positivist reading has said: “the [Ninth] Amendment was designed as a savings clause, to ensure that the specification of particular rights would not raise an inference that the Bill of Rights exhausted the rights which the people held as against the newly-created national government.” Your quote is also worthless because completely ignore the “last clause of the fourth resolution”, to which Madison referred, provided: “[t]he exceptions here or elsewhere in the [C]onstitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people, or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the [C]onstitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.” Madison clearly was saying the exact opposite of what you purport he was saying. He, and many other founding fathers, never believed that the Constitution listed all the rights that should be protected. In addition, Madison’s original proposition did not include the final four words of the 9th Amendment “or to the people”. That language was added later, further evidence that the Constitution was never meant to be a limit on the rights of man. If you’re still not convinced, just look at the comments of other founding fathers. Here’s some quotes: Theodore Sedgwick, in particular found a list of rights to be unnecessary. After all, there are countless rights -"a man’s right to wear a hat, to go to bed when he wants, to ride a horse in the afternoon. If you’re going to guarantee one of these, why not all of them? James Wilson: “It is the glorious destiny of man to be always progressive. . . . Hence we may infer, that the law of nature, though immutable in its principles, will be progressive in its operations and effects. . . . In every period of his existence, the law, which the divine wisdom has approved for man, will not only be fitted, to the cotemporary [sic] degree but will be calculated to produce, in future, a still higher degree of perfection.” And, my personal favorite, Edmund Pendleton suggested that the ‘danger’ of an enumeration of rights was that ‘in the progress of things, [we may] discover some great and Important [right], which we don’t now think of.’ The Bill of Rights was never intended to be a complete list of the rights of man or of rights that the government cannot infringe. To bind yourself to the proposition that, unless a right is specifically enumerated in the constitution, it does not enjoy Constitutional protection ignores not just justice, but the understanding of many who wrote, debated, and ratified the Constitution. And quoting Madison for a proposition he never advocated is, at best, troubling. > [@Bricker](#): > > The Constitution is simply the supreme law of the law. It is law, and is interpreted just like other law. No, it’s not. It’s a Constitution, not a law. It’s a document that describes broad principles, great ideas, and a form of government, not a statute. It is important to remember that Constitutional interpretation and statutory interpretation are not synonomous. It was the intent of the constitutional convention to draft a constitution, not a law, that was “flexible enough to address the evolving needs of the country rather than being limited to the historical particularities of the late Eighteenth Century. It was couched in vague, and somewhat ambiguous language, to allow for its growth and evolution over time. It was the skeleton that experience would cloth.” > [@Bricker](#): > > Where’s you get a definitive list of the rights that you found in there? The ones that no author of the document would have been in agreement with, and no elected official ever gave his assent to? Answer the question, counselor: So the Constitution only protects rights that are enshrined within? All others are left to the whim of the legislatures? Where’d you get that idea? > [@Bricker](#): > > No system is perfect. I regard the right of the people to govern themselves as one of vital significance. Is this another one of those rhetorical flourishes of yours? That somehow anyone who has the audicity to disagree with you doesn’t regard the right of the people to govern themselves as one of vital significance. When did you turn into **Shodan**? Of course self-governance is of vital significance. But it is not the end of the discussion. The founding fathers understood that, and created safeguards to protect the minority. One of those is the judicial protection of the rights of citizens. > [@Bricker](#): > > My system is the one enshrined in the Constitution, bud. Yours is the one changing it, re-writing it at your whim, to promote social policies you favor at any given moment. That’s the best you got, “Nuh, uh!” Killer argument there. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judicial-activism-and-conservative-judges/328835.md?page=6)