Judicial activism is a good thing, unless you disagree! And how long have we had it?

When these neocons spout off about “judicial activism,” I say it’s just because they disagree with the results of that “activism.”

Hasn’t this so-called “judicial activism” been around for many, many years? The Berger Court long ago gave us all sorts of stuff in the fields of civil rights, the rights of the accused: Miranda rights, Gideon v. Wainwright (right to an attorney), desegregation, etc.

So why do they keep on complaining about it? Isn’t this a long, long done deal, and they like to scream “judicial activism!” or “activist judges!” just because they think it pushes people’s buttons (like calling someone a liberal).

Isn’t that the way our federal constitution is constructed? Judges are designed to be unaccountable; that’s why they’re appointed (at least at the Federal level, and in many states), and at the Federal level, they’re appointed for life. (Here in New York state, they’re appointed to 7 year renewable terms). So they get to face the hard decisions that career politicians shun.

I guess part of this should be here, and the other part in General Questions. But I’m sure people will use old citations to support themselves, and thus answer my second question.

BTW, I’m a newbie here, and I’m not sure how ranting and raving about the other side I’m allowed to do. No personal insults, sure, but group insults about neocons?

Hi, jgroub, and welcome to the boards. Generally here, you can insult anyone you want, but you just have to do it in the Pit. I also just wanted to point out two things. First, that most of the cases you mentioned…Miranda, Gideon, desegregation, etc., happened during the Warren court, and not the Berger Court.

Secondly, neoconservativism isn’t a judicial philosophy. It’s primarily a foreign policy one, and it’s not the neocons who tend to be the loudest critics of judicial activism.