A Quote by Michael Kinsley

Of course, conservatives always claim to be against judicial activism. — © Michael Kinsley
Of course, conservatives always claim to be against judicial activism.
If Americans loved judicial activism, liberals wouldn't be lying about what it is. Judicial activism means making up constitutional rights in order to strike down laws the justices don't like based on their personal preferences. It's not judicial activism to strike down laws because they violate the Constitution.
You want to know what judicial activism is? Judicial activism is judges imposing their policy preferences on the words of the Constitution.
It wouldn't be fair to say that conservatives cherish property the way liberals cherish equality. But it would be fair to say that the takings clause is the conservatives' recipe for judicial activism just as they say liberals have misused the equal protection clause.
It wouldn't be fair to say that conservatives cherish property the way liberals cherish equality. But it would be fair to say that the takings clause is the conservatives recipe for judicial activism just as they say liberals have misused the equal protection clause.
The neo-conservatives, who are closely linked to the neo-corporatists, are rather different. They claim to be conservatives, when everything they stand for is a rejection of conservatism. They claim to present an alternate social model, when they are little more than the courtiers of the corporatist movement. Their agitation is filled with the bitterness and cynicism typical of courtiers who scramble for crumbs at the banquet tables of real power, but are always denied a proper chair.
As Alexander Hamilton said in 'The Federalist Papers,' law is about the exercise of judgment and not will. Judicial activism is best understood as substituting judicial opinion for the command of law. The law is not an infinitely malleable tool.
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole.
We have a problem with judicial activism in this country.
One of the litmus tests for judicial conservatism is the idea of judicial restraint - that courts should give substantial deference to the decisions of the political process. When Congress and the president enact a law, conservatives generally say, judges should avoid 'legislating from the bench.'
It is true that there have been excesses of judicial activism.
I've been in journalism my entire adult life and have often defended it against fellow conservatives who claim the news business is fundamentally corrupt.
Now judicial review, beloved by conservatives, can, of course, fulfill the excellent function of declaring government interventions and tyrannies unconstitutional. But it can also validate and legitimize the government in the eyes of the people by declaring these actions valid and constitutional.
Out of control judicial activism threatens traditional marriage in America.
Our Parliamentary system has simply failed to meet the challenge of judicial activism.
Liberals attempt through judicial activism what they cannot win at the ballot box.
So the danger of conservative judicial activism has been averted for another year. Stay tuned.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!