He claimed, along with Jerry Falwell, that it was God’s punishment because the USA allowed homosexuality to flourish. Every time I hear another piece of garbage spouted by this jerk I want to hunt him down and do him some physical harm.
Me too, neither. In fact, why in general do they present these caricature figures to speak for one side or the other? For conservatives, it’s always either some nutcase like Robertson, or some inarticulate senator with a bad combover. And lord knows, there is never a libertarian view expressed. Why not have Newt Gingrich If you’re going to have a conservative? And if you’re going to have someone like Pat Robertson commenting on the judiciary, then you should have someone like Al Sharpton for the left when it’s time to discuss military strategy.
Which is ironic since Fred Phelps has condemned them both to hell for being too soft on gays.
For the same reason that you don’t make fun of mentally handicapped people. Pat Robertson has no credibility outside of his 700 Club-type followers.
Activist judges = they didn’t rule the way I want them to.
Seriously though, Pat Robertson is not in any position to be deciding who’s a good candidate for a judicial post. He just makes himself look more irrational by saying these things publicly.
Well… only technically. The broadcasting assures a wide audience; the mocking is taken care of by Robertson himself.
That’s not true.
Activist judging = invoking doctrines of legal analysis such as substantive due process, as opposed to using either an originalist or a strict constructionist approach.
The case of Lochner v. New York is an example of an activist decision, and it’s one in which I suspect you would disagree with the result… the Court found that New York could not constitutionally limit the hours worked in a week by bakers, because employees and employers had a “freedom to contract.” New York’s attempt to stop employers from forcing their employees to work eighteen-hour days was overturned.
Kyllo v US is NOT an activist decision, even though I don’t agree with the result. The Court simply interpreted the words of the law, as applied to modern trechnology. I don’t agree that infrared scans of a house are a “search” - the infrared rays are radiated into the air, freely seen by anyone with the equipment necessary… but the Court found that viewing them is a search. I don’t agree, but they reached their result by simply reading the words of the Constitution and applying them.
Again: “activist” is NOT simply a decision with which the speaker disagrees. It is a descriptive, not a normative, term. An activist decision may have results that are inherently good or inherently bad.
Got it?
Yup.
However, the term is so frequently misused by right-wing politicans and pundits (e.g., Tom DeLay’s comments about the federal judges who killed poor Terri Schiavo, even though she whaaaahahahanted to live), a bit of confusion is understandable.
In fact, if you were making a facetious characterization about how some of those politicians and pundits are using the term, “Activist judges = they didn’t rule the way I want them to” seems pretty much on the mark. 
In the way that Pat Robertson et al are using it, yes, it does mean that. Judges are there to follow the letter of the law, just some people’s interpretation of it is different. So when they hear soemthing they don’t like, it’s activism. This whole storm came to a head with the Terry Schiavo case and that’s why all these nutjobs have their panties in a twist. They have misinterpreted the law and are looking for someone to blame for their stupidity.
That’s putting it mildly.
I think Robertson keeps getting airtime (at least on ABC stations) because he’s a part owner of ABC-Family. That doesn’t excuse it. If only we could get the intellegent conservitives and liberals on the Sunday shows. Where are the William Buckleys and the Tom Dashels? I would start watching them again if it didn’t feel like every single dicussion could end with one side saying, “I know you are, but what am I?”
Heh. I guess with Nazi germany defeated and Al Quaeda not looking so hot today, Pat Robertson must lead his team of tragic superheroes endlessly misunderstood by the world on a righteous fight to save the world from the clutches of… Judgeneto, whose telekinetic control over law briefs makes him annoying.
Sorry, for soe reason I just though an X-men parody was appropriate. I’ll just go now.
I’m sure the media’s willingness to treat Pat Robertson as if her were a serious spokesman for conservative values will be used as evidence of Liberal Media Bias™.
Where do they treat him as a “serious spokesman for conservative values”? I think they report it so people will say “Look what that idiot said this time”.
He’s not. Robertson’s company, International Family Entertainment, Inc., owned the channel, but then in 1997, sold it to Fox Kids Worldwide, a joint venture of News Corp (Fox) and Haim Saban’s Sabin Entertainment, Inc. (Saban is responbible for the Power Rangers, the X-Men cartoon, and a bunch of kid’s programing), and it became the Fox Family Channel. In 2001, Fox Kids Worldwide sold it to ABC, and it became ABC Family.
Robertson no longer has an interest in the channel.
Oh, for Ghu’s sake, I thought it was self-evident that PinkMarabou was commenting on Pat Robertson’s simple-minded use of the “activist judges” shibboleth, not an attempt to accurately define it as a legal term of art.
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?
PinkMarabou might be surprised to learn that he’s right wing. 
Isn’t expecting people to think critically about what they see on TV and not assume that it’s true just because it was on a “news” show or channel a bit optimistic?
My mistake. I figured he still did, since 700 Club is still shown on it.
Why would he learn that? Is it not possible for people that aren’t right-wing to be confused by people that are?