Comment by Ajedi32
1 year ago
No. Particularly when one of the primary goals of that activism is to produce judges who aren't activists:
> [The Federalist Society] is founded on the principles that [...] it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.
“What the law is, not what it should be” is code for a particular viewpoint on how to rule itself, which is activism.
If everything is "activism" then nothing is "activism".
Judges are “activist” as a political label only when they rule in a way that you don’t like. It is a meaningless label generated by politicians to get them to vote for them and put in different judges who will vote the way they think you want! And that’s not activism?
You and I clearly have different ideas of what constitutes judicial activism. What would you consider to be "non-activist" then, if ruling based on what the law says rather than on your personal politics is itself activist?
Laws are not boolean logic that are cut and dry, otherwise we wouldn’t need human judges.
The federalist society is a well funded organization whose goal and track record is to install conservative judges to interpret the law in a very specific way, all the way up to the Supreme Court. I’d that’s not activism then I don’t know what is.
3 replies →