Americans Believe Activist Judges Overstepping Their Roles

Now it has always been the case that the ruling political party exerts great pressure to appoint sympathetic judges to federal and state Supreme Courts who will likely rule in favor of any issues that support that parties’ ideology, but in many case over the last 30 years there have been rulings that astounded even the experts, as in the case of Roe v. Wade, the abortion issue, or the federal court’s intervention in the Terry Schiavo case.

Fairleigh Dickinson University periodically conducts their PublicMind poll on important issues that affect all Americans. Recently, a poll asked the question, “Are the federal and state courts legislating from the bench?”

The surprising results of the poll were that Americans, regardless of whether they classify themselves as independent, Democrat, Republican, liberal, moderate or conservative, believe that the courts are overstepping their role as interpreters of the law. 75 percent believe that legislating from the bench is a serious problem in federal courts, and 67 percent believe it is a serious problem in state courts. These results coincide with a separate CBS poll in which 77 percent believe that a judge’s personal ideology should not affect judicial decision-making.

The PublicMind poll surprisingly found that 80 percent of New Jerseyans perceive state judges as mere political pawns wielding enormous power favored towards their political party in the heavily slanted Democratic/liberal state. In recent years, supposedly well-meaning but in reality ignorant citizens have elected to bypass the normal democratic process (its called the Legislature) to achieve their goals, by filing suit with the Supreme Court to obtain favorable rulings on often-banal issues, regardless of how infinitesimal their desires may be when compared to the broad needs and wallets of the taxpayers.

A prime example of this policy, more in line with authoritarian governments, is the ruling by the Supreme Court in 1998 in the case of Abbott v. Burke that that New Jersey's school funding statute was unconstitutional because it violated the "thorough and efficient education" requirement of the state constitution. This forced the Legislature to pass the “Educational Facilities Construction and Financing Act” allocating $8.6 billion towards design, renovation, repair and new construction of primary and secondary schools throughout the State. The new Law guaranteed construction aid for every school district in New Jersey. The minimum level of aid is forty percent (40%), and Abbott districts (predominately minority) receive one hundred percent (100%) of eligible costs. In response, the Legislature created the Schools Construction Corporation, which demonstrated unprecedented waste and incompetence in completing only 25 percent of the tasks with that money. Now these same anti-democratic citizens want more billions to finish the job – possibly $20 billion more.

One important basis of our government that seems to have gotten lost over the years is the purpose of the judiciary in the makeup of our republic, in that courts are supposed to resolve individual disputes – it is the legislative and executive branches of government responsibility to set policy. When the judiciary upsets the careful balance between the three branches and sets the course of public policy, then the entire process of the people voting for and electing representatives becomes meaningless. Citizens will no longer believe they can affect the laws that govern them, and democracy slides into the abyss.

In an article in the Star-Ledger addressing this issue, two esteemed jurists said:

“A government dominated by an overly aggressive judiciary creates other problems. It provides fertile ground for the agendas of narrow special interests. Many such groups are unable to implement their agendas through the democratic process. These democratic end runs only weaken our republican government, however, and frustrate its ultimate purpose: the common good…. “

Perhaps the citizen’s only realistic course of action is to recall all “activist” judges, regardless of their political allegiances.

Voter’s Initiatives Prove Meaningless to Federal Judges

According to Representative Ron Paul (Republican, Texas), federal judges are ignoring the mandate of the people (that is on the rare occasion when their voice can be heard) and overturn many ballot measures for implausible reasons.

The history of their traitorous acts are staggering:

· A majority of California voters supported a ballot measure to stop illegal aliens from receiving tax-funded services such as schools, hospital care and social services. A federal judge declared the measure null and void.

· A majority of Oregon voters supported a ballot measure to require the government to compensate landowners when property was taken through environmental regulations. A federal judge declared the measure null and void.

· In Alabama, Judge Roy Moore was forced to remove the Ten Commandments from the State Supreme Court grounds. A federal judge declared the monument unconstitutional, ignored the Tenth Amendment, and forced his will on the people.

· The U. S. Supreme Court, forcibly and collectively overturned the abortion laws of all 50 states in the case of Roe v. Wade by ignoring the Tenth Amendment.

Activist federal judges have declared themselves the power over state legislatures, school boards and city councils. Prayer, personal privacy and now marriage laws are under siege in federal courts. As a result, the federal government grows ever more invasive, as the states and their laws and constitution become subservient if not impotent.

Representative Paul, one of the few voices of reason in Congress, said:

“It’s not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the outcome of a federal court ruling. Some may claim that an activist judiciary that strikes down state laws at will expands individual liberty. Proponents of this action overlook the fact that the best guarantor of true liberty is decentralized political institutions, while the greatest threat to liberty is concentrated power. This is why the Constitution carefully limits the power of the Federal Government over the states. Furthermore, when federal judges impose their preferred policies on State and local governments…republican government is threatened.

Perhaps more importantly, attempts to resolve, by judicial fiat, important issues like abortion and the expression of religious beliefs in the public square increase social strife and conflict. The only way to resolve controversial issues like abortion and school prayer is to restore respect for the right of the State and local governments to adopt policies that reflect the beliefs of the citizens of those jurisdictions.”