# Pat Robertson claims federal judges are greater threat than al Qaeda/Nazi Germany **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 3, 2005, 3:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171 "2005-05-03T03:02:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/41 "2005-05-03T18:24:35Z")
> [@Maus Magill](#): > > My mistake. I figured he still did, since 700 Club is still shown on it. It’s thought that that was part of the deal when he sold it to Fox (and, which, Disney is still apparently sticking to). ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/42 "2005-05-03T18:44:43Z")
> [@Metacom](#): > > Why would he learn that? Is it not possible for people that aren’t right-wing to be confused by people that are? Just as possible as it is for people who are right-wing to be confused by people who aren’t. The left-wing and right-wing used to be competitors. You’ve become enemies. Ten dollars against a dollar says that you’ll blame them, and they’ll blame you. ---
**Author:** ![Sampiro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/2acd7d/32.png) [@Sampiro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sampiro)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/43 "2005-05-03T18:44:58Z")
Robertson, easily the richest of the televangelists in terms of personal wealth, seems to have limitless greed. He’s actually one of the reasons Burt Reynolds went belly-up financially (though in fairness to Pat he’s only one of many reasons) due to a legal but unethical business dealing. Reynolds’s moderate hit sitcom _Evening Shade_ was owned by Mary Tyler Moore (MTM) Productions; Reynolds had counted heavily on his residuals for the series and borrowed money against them. Robertson, through one of his companies (not Family Channel) purchased MTM, then (and this was legal but just barely and very shitty) leased the exclusive rights to broadcast _Evening Shade_ repeats to Family Channel, another of his for-profit companies, for a ridiculously low amount, meaning that Burt’s share of residuals were in the thousands of dollars rather than the millions and his already bad financial situation exploded. He hates Robertson to this day. The man is boiled down concentrated evil, hypocrisy incarnate, and how anybody can be stupid enough to accept him as a “man of God” is a mystery way beyond the Lost Colony and the Nazca Lines. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/44 "2005-05-03T19:18:08Z")
**adam yax:** \*I don’t know how much bearing it would have on the conversation, but what percentage of federal judges were appointed by republicans, and what percentage by democrats? \* Currently, [94 out of 162 federal judges](http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/041805F.shtml) are Republican appointees: > [@](#): > > Ninety-four of the 162 active judges now on the U.S. Court of Appeals were chosen by Republican presidents. On 10 of the 13 circuit courts, Republican appointees have a clear majority. And, since 1976, at least seven of the nine seats on the U.S. Supreme Court have been filled by Republican appointees. > > ``` > Even if Bush wins approval for the dozen disputed nominees who have been blocked by Senate Democrats, only one circuit would change its ideological balance - hardly a seismic shift. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, now evenly divided, would become 10-6 Republican. > > ``` > > Though it remains a staple of conservative rhetoric that the courts are “out of control” and driven by “liberal activists,” the GOP’s control of the White House for 24 of the last 36 years has given Republicans - if not conservatives - a firm grip on the federal judiciary. I cannot understand why more people aren’t howling bullshit on Robertson on this account. The Republican-appointed contingent of the federal judiciary has been getting steadily larger over most of the past few decades, and now constitutes a solid supermajority that is definitely going to continue growing over at least the next few years. But all of a sudden he’s yelping that liberal judges are an imminent menace? If so many of the judges we’ve got now are such a threat to America, then where the hell was Robertson’s outrage back when those evil tyrannical liberals Nixon and Reagan and GHW Bush were appointing them? Why didn’t he speak up then? I howl bullshit. Even if you consider that Robertson’s opinion is worth a plugged nickel on any other subject (and as others here have noted there’s not a lot of evidence to support that proposition), this “liberal judges” frenzy is obviously nothing but hooey. ---
**Author:** ![chappachula](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/d2c977/32.png) [@chappachula](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chappachula)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/45 "2005-05-03T19:24:04Z")
> [@galen ubal](#): > > but can anyone give me an example of rulings by such judges that aren’t self-evidently reasonable? … a majority that was simply wrong (‘seperate but equal’, ?). How about the gay marriage rulings? There is a _huge_ difference between todays “activist” judges and the “Separate but equal” judges. In 1956, only about 10 states had segregation, the other 40 did not. The judges who forced the south to change were not imposing new rules which had never existed before–they were forcing 20% of the states to join the other 80% , whose voters had already passed laws allowing integration. Today’s gay marriage rulings are the exact opposite. The judges imposed new rules that had never existed before, when NO states had passed laws allowing gay marriage. (sorry to post this here, in a Pat-Robertson-bashing thread,–I hate him as much as everybody else.) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/46 "2005-05-03T19:47:26Z")
The judges who ruled in Massachussetts did no such thing (I’m assuming that’s what you are referring to…) The law, as written, referred to “persons”. “Persons” shall be permitted to marry. The legislators screwed the pooch by assuming that no one would ever try such an outrageous thing. They were wrong. Had they written “man and a woman”, and the Court had altered that to mean “persons” on their own accord, you would be right. But they didn’t, and you’re not. ---
**Author:** ![ouryL](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ouryl/32/6067_2.png) [@ouryL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ouryL)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/47 "2005-05-03T19:49:35Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > [http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/305721p-261517c.html](http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/305721p-261517c.html) > Why is Pat Robertson still put on television and interviewed as though he has any sort of serious mind or opinion? Why isn’t he mocked as a nutbag by the mainstream media? What the fuck, man? PAT ROBERTSON IS A NUT. [CITE](http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/rr/blfaq_rr_robert_views.htm) :wally ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/48 "2005-05-03T19:52:29Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I cannot understand why more people aren’t howling bullshit on Robertson on this account. Because IOKIARDI. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/49 "2005-05-03T19:54:08Z")
**chappachula** , all of the cases that have supported gay marriage have been state court decisions (Massachusetts, Hawaii, etc.), not federal court decisions. Robertson’s railing against federal judges. I’m not aware of a federal court decision upholding gay marriage? > [@Kimstu](#): > > Currently, 94 out of 162 federal judges are Republican appointees: > > > [@](#): > > > > Ninety-four of the 162 active judges now on the U.S. Court of Appeals were chosen by Republican presidents. On 10 of the 13 circuit courts, Republican appointees have a clear majority. Those 162 are the circuit court of appeal judges - do you have any numbers for the federal district court judges? ---
**Author:** ![Metacom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ecae2f/32.png) [@Metacom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Metacom)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/50 "2005-05-03T19:56:26Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Just as possible as it is for people who are right-wing to be confused by people who aren’t. The left-wing and right-wing used to be competitors. You’ve become enemies. Ten dollars against a dollar says that you’ll blame them, and they’ll blame you. So what? It’s certainly true that someone who’s left wing can confuse someone who’s right wing, but the comment you responded to was specifically discussing judicial activism, which is primarily a right-wing rallying cry. I don’t hear of many left-wing politicians misusing that specific term. Obviously, that doesn’t mean that they don’t misuse other terms, but hopefully that would be so blatantly obvious that it wouldn’t warrant a comment so I assume you’re obtusely trying to get at something else? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/51 "2005-05-03T20:03:54Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > The judges who ruled in Massachussetts did no such thing (I’m assuming that’s what you are referring to…) > > The law, as written, referred to “persons”. “Persons” shall be permitted to marry. The legislators screwed the pooch by assuming that no one would ever try such an outrageous thing. They were wrong. Had they written “man and a woman”, and the Court had altered that to mean “persons” on their own accord, you would be right. But they didn’t, and you’re not. NO, that’s not what happened. > [@Mass. Supreme Judicial Court](#): > > The question before us is whether, consistent with the Massachusetts Constitution, the Commonwealth may deny the protections, benefits, and obligations conferred by civil marriage to two individuals of the same sex who wish to marry. We conclude that it may not. The Massachusetts Constitution affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals. It forbids the creation of second-class citizens. In reaching our conclusion we have given full deference to the arguments made by the Commonwealth. But it has failed to identify any constitutionally adequate reason for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. See? They said that constitutionally, the Commonwealth MAY NOT DENY MARRIAGE to same-sex couples. Even if the law had said, “…man and woman…” the Commonwealth would be forbidden from enforcing it, because Massachusetts’ constitution does not permit the state government to deny the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. Were they changing the law? Sure they were. How do I know? Because they said, in their opinion: > [@Mass. Supreme Judicial Court](#): > > We are mindful that our decision marks a change in the history of our marriage law. In fact, the court specifically considered your idea, since it was raised by the plaintiffs: > [@Mass. Supreme Judicial Court](#): > > The plaintiffs argue that because nothing in that licensing law specifically prohibits marriages between persons of the same sex, we may interpret the statute to permit “qualified same sex couples” to obtain marriage licenses, thereby avoiding the question whether the law is constitutional. What did they say about it? > [@Mass. Supreme Judicial Court](#): > > This claim lacks merit. It cannot be any plainer than that. They did NOT decide that because the legislature didn’t explictly say, “…man and woman…” there was a loophole through which we could drive the same-sex marriage truck. They REJECTED that idea: > [@Mass. Supreme Judicial Court](#): > > We interpret statutes to carry out the Legislature’s intent, determined by the words of a statute interpreted according to “the ordinary and approved usage of the language.” Hanlon v. Rollins, 286 Mass. 444, 447 (1934). The everyday meaning of “marriage” is “[t]he legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife,” Black’s Law Dictionary 986 (7th ed.1999), and the plaintiffs do not argue that the term “marriage” has ever had a different meaning under Massachusetts law. See, e.g., Milford v. Worcester, 7 Mass. 48, 52 (1810) (marriage “is an engagement, by which a single man and a single woman, of sufficient discretion, take each other for husband and wife”). This definition of marriage, as both the department and the Superior Court judge point out, derives from the common law. See Commonwealth v. Knowlton, 2 Mass. 530, 535 (1807) (Massachusetts common law derives from English common law except as otherwise altered by Massachusetts statutes and Constitution). See also Commonwealth v. Lane, 113 Mass. 458, 462-463 (1873) (“when the statutes are silent, questions of the validity of marriages are to be determined by the jus gentium, the common law of nations”); C.P. Kindregan, Jr., & M.L. Inker, Family Law and Practice § 1.2 (3d ed.2002). Far from being ambiguous, the undefined word “marriage,” as used in G.L. c. 207, confirms the General Court’s intent to hew to the term’s common-law and quotidian meaning concerning the genders of the marriage partners. The Massachusetts Supremes did, in fact, change the law, and they did so because they found that the Massachusetts constitution required that same-sex couples be permitted to marry… not because the language of the extant law was ambiguous. OK? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/52 "2005-05-03T20:04:55Z")
**NP:** _Those 162 are the circuit court of appeal judges - do you have any numbers for the federal district court judges?_ Found some [numbers](http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/001902.html), but I’m not sure what their ultimate source is: > [@](#): > > Since 1969, Republican Presidents have appointed 813 trial Judges to the District Court bench while Democrats have made 508 such appointments. > > If the Federal Judiciary is comprised of a bunch of liberal activists, it is the GOP who put them there. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/53 "2005-05-03T20:46:30Z")
> [@chappachula](#): > > There is a _huge_ difference between todays “activist” judges and the “Separate but equal” judges. In 1956, only about 10 states had segregation, the other 40 did not. The judges who forced the south to change were not imposing new rules which had never existed before–they were forcing 20% of the states to join the other 80% , whose voters had already passed laws allowing integration. That is 100% irrelevant. If a given area of the law falls within the powers reserved to the states, it matters not a whit whether 49 states do one thing and the remaining state does the opposite. The federal judges who struck down segregation laws, were, IMO correct in finding that it was **not** , in fact, within a state’s power to create this sort of second-class citizenship based on race – but they based this conclusion on Federal constitutional law, not some sort of interstate survey. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/54 "2005-05-03T20:54:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Massachusetts Supremes did, in fact, change the law, and they did so because they found that the Massachusetts constitution required that same-sex couples be permitted to marry… not because the language of the extant law was ambiguous. > > OK? They didn’t _create_ a law, they _struck down_ a law which violated their state constitution. It is their job to strike down laws which violate their state constitution. How is that “activist?” ---
**Author:** ![PinkMarabou](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ec9cab/32.png) [@PinkMarabou](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PinkMarabou)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/55 "2005-05-03T21:41:07Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > PinkMarabou might be surprised to learn that he’s right wing. 😃 Surprised to learn who’s right-wing? ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/56 "2005-05-03T21:55:18Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > They didn’t _create_ a law, they _struck down_ a law which violated their state constitution. It is their job to strike down laws which violate their state constitution. How is that “activist?” If the law doesn’t actually violate their state constitution, it is activist to strike down that law. This is a really stupid bit of sophistry on your part, BTW. They did “create law”: they effectively crafted a new provision for the Massachusetts constitution out of whole cloth. A more honest poster would recognize that that is what **Bricker** was referring to. Having said all that, Pat Robertson is an asshat. Judicial activism is a problem, but it’s hardly a problem on the scale of the Nazi war machine. And having said _that_… > [@Sampiro](#): > > Robertson, easily the richest of the televangelists in terms of personal wealth, seems to have limitless greed. He’s actually one of the reasons Burt Reynolds went belly-up financially (though in fairness to Pat he’s only one of many reasons) due to a legal but unethical business dealing. Reynolds’s moderate hit sitcom Evening Shade was owned by Mary Tyler Moore (MTM) Productions; Reynolds had counted heavily on his residuals for the series and borrowed money against them. Robertson, through one of his companies (not Family Channel) purchased MTM, then (and this was legal but just barely and very shitty) leased the exclusive rights to broadcast Evening Shade repeats to Family Channel, another of his for-profit companies, for a ridiculously low amount, meaning that Burt’s share of residuals were in the thousands of dollars rather than the millions and his already bad financial situation exploded. He hates Robertson to this day. I’m curious as to why it is “just barely legal and very shitty” to purchase a property and then license it at favorable rates to your affiliated companies. That just sounds like good, fair business to me. It certainly isn’t Robertson’s fault that Reynolds decided to count his chickens before they hatched. He’s still an asshat, of course, and has his fingers in other nasty business dealings. But I don’t think this example qualifies. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/57 "2005-05-03T22:04:49Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > If the law doesn’t actually violate their state constitution, it is activist to strike down that law. But the law DID violate their state constitution. That was the ruling of the state supreme court and theirs is the opinion which is binding. > [@](#): > > This is a really stupid bit of sophistry on your part, BTW. They did “create law”: they effectively crafted a new provision for the Massachusetts constitution out of whole cloth. A more honest poster would recognize that that is what **Bricker** was referring to. No they didn’t. All they did was uphold what the constitution already stated. You can disagree with their interpretation, but as a matter of procedural fact, that is what happened. The state supreme court reviewed a law and found it violated their own state constitution. It is not “dishonest” for me to say so. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/58 "2005-05-03T22:07:51Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > They didn’t _create_ a law, they _struck down_ a law which violated their state constitution. It is their job to strike down laws which violate their state constitution. How is that “activist?” Suppose, for argument’s sake, the court struck down the civil law against libel, finding that it chilled freedom of expression in violation of the First Amendment. Would your reaction be the same? Or suppose that the court struck down minimum wage laws, finding that they violate the “right to contract” that the state constitution guarantees every person… a right not written anywhere in the constitution. How would you react to such a decision? When the court extrapolates into their state constitution a meaning far removed from the intent of the authors, unrelated to any goal of the legislative history, and unsupported by the text within the four corners of the document, that’s what’s meant by “activist.” It does not mean that the result is undesirable. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/59 "2005-05-03T22:23:47Z")
Correction noted. You are substantially correct in that the Mass court did not rely on a semantic quibble. Point of fact, more power to them. I underestimated their courage. That said, however… > [@](#): > > When the court extrapolates into their state constitution a meaning far removed from the intent of the authors, unrelated to any goal of the legislative history, and unsupported by the text within the four corners of the document, that’s what’s meant by “activist.” It does not mean that the result is undesirable That is precisely the function they are assigned, yes? It is their job, not yours, not mine, to decide what is supported by the text within the four corners of the document. Do you suggest that the pizza delivery boy is an “activist” pizza delivery boy simply because he brings the pizza? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171/60 "2005-05-03T22:28:09Z")
This is why I’m generally confused and somewhat skeptical about accusations of “judicial activism”. It seems as though one lawyer’s “straightforward interpretation of the law/constitution” is always another lawyer’s “unjustified extrapolation of a meaning not present in the law/constitution”. I know that the anti-judicial-activism folks often say there are objective ways of determining what is judicial activism and what isn’t, but in practice it almost always seems to be very blurry and contentious. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pat-robertson-claims-federal-judges-are-greater-threat-than-al-qaeda-nazi-germany/302171.md?page=4)