Why does one liberal activist judge have the right to strike down a law?
954225
Indeed, very dangerous. Judges are intended to interpret the law but have been using their power to create the law. That is very bad. Impeachment or recall are the only real options for activist judges.
578845
I BELIEVE IN ALMOST ALL COUNTIRES THE JUDGES ARE MANIPULATED BY THE POLITICIANS. ITS ALL A SCAM, THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE SHOULD ABANDON THE LAWS THIS IS WHAT KEEPS SOME OF US IN LINE.
947965
If the judge signed it, it is enforceable, thus "legal". While the lawyers' signatures indicate assent on the part of the attorneys and their clients, the judge's signature is controlling.
988479
You've got two concepts crossed.  \n\nAn individual's sexual activity is their own business.  Activists' activities are not bringing any "private moment out in public," except when others, such as the police, have already done so; I am thinking specifically here of sodomy cases which have gone to the US Supreme Court because sodomy laws were selectively applied only to homosexuals. \n\nWe are not demanding "specific rights."\n\nWhat we demand is that our individual rights are upheld and not abridged.  The American Consitution has amendments which have been in the hopes that they will guarantee that freedom is allowed to all people.  That has been done because of institutionalized discrimination against people of this country.\n\nWe cry "foul" because there are freedoms that are denied to us, that continue to be denied to us, and that we have to fight to attain because of the discrimination, the violence, and the very lack of freedom in our lives.
101464
Ther is no need to ratify the constution for any one particular group's wishes. There are alredy anti-discrimination laws in our country. If someone is unhappy with a law, they should work within the system to change that law. Change cannot be forced and can only come from within. What needs to change is our perception that any group of people should have more or less rights than any other group.
687342
Turboweegie is somewhat correct, but in fact, an "originalist judge" is one who would purport to follow the intent, not of the constitution itself (it is a document, and cannot form intent), and not even the framers of the constitution, but rather, the intent of the ratifiers of the constitution and each of its amendments. For example, the ratifiers of the 14th amendment fully intended that amendment to protect the rights of the freed former slaves, even to the extent that the states' "Freedman's Bureaus," which provided employment and other economic advantages to these former slaves, would be constitional. (This fact alone makes it clear that affirmative action programs are constitutional.)\nThe argument against these so-called "originalists" is that they, here in the early 21st century, will likely have difficulties in knowing, without error, the intents of the 18th and 19th century ratifiers of the constitution and its amendments. That difficulty is compounded by the fact that the ratifiers include the state legislatures, a rather large and heterogeneous group. Further, argument could be made that the intent of wealthy white men living in an agrarian society largely isolated from other countries during the 18th century may or may not be the ideal way in which we wish to rule our 21st century industrial, globally oriented society.
449107
Your question is good and very interesting. What it shows is the many contradicitons in the law.\n\nIf goverment had it their way--I imagine they would outlaw many of the personal freedoms we have.\nWhy one law is set in place opposed to another depends on the lobby of folks in higher places that are willing to fight agaisnt it.\n\nIt is a fine line the goverment walks as they make laws on a public level without stepping on peoples personal rights.\n\nHowever--you are not without choice--you can choose not to wear seatbelts and pay the 10$ ticket if caught or you can organize folks to fight agaisnt an unjust law.\n\nLike I said above--it is these fights that explain why we have so many contradictions.
613340
Liberal Judges.  How can a rapists get 10 yrs probation.  Some bleeding heart is afraid that he will be abused.
976415
I am of the opinion that the presiding judge is well within his right to record a fiding exparte and it is not in violation of the principle of natural justice, so long as the respondent was given due notice of the proceedings according him an opportunity to be heard. The principle of natural justice does not mean that no order can be passed without hearing the parties concerned. It only requires that the parties before the forum should be given an opportunity to being heard. If the respondent had any difficulty in appearing before the judicial forum, like paucity of funds or threat to life, that is an entirely different matter. There were several options before him to meet such situations. Paucity of funds cannot be a valid ground for non-appearance. It is upto him to fend for himself to protect his own interests. I am sure there are provisions in the law prevailing in the USA, as it is in many other countries, for free legal aid for the indigent citizens. He could have availed of free legal aid. As regards the intimidation, which purportedlty detained him from appearance, it was open to him to lodge a criminal complaint against the petitioner and a copy of the complaint, if produced before the judge, would have weighed in his favour, for further adjournemetnt of his case. \n\nNow, that the matter has come to an end, before the learned judge, he has got two options. One is that he file a petition for review before the very same judge who passed the order and the second one is preferring an appeal before the appeallate authoruity. You may do this through a legal aid forum, if any available.
929749
The answer to your question is Liberal Judges who want to understand and empathize with the child molester rather than treating them as the excrement they are.\n Instead of a much needed Castration they are sent to therapy.
797973
Without the spin, "observers" say that Chief Justice Earl Warren was a liberal. In his years as an elected official in California, he often ran not only on the Republican Party ticket, but he was also nominated by the Democrats and the Progressive Party, too. (California allowed for "cross-filing:" being the nominee of more than one party.)\n\n"As  judge, Warren does not rank with the leading legal craftsmen, nor will he be noted for his mastery of the common law. But he never pretended to be a judicial technician. Instead, he was a 'result-oriented' judge, who used his power to secure the outcome he deemed right in the cases before his Court. Using his authority to the utmost, he never hesitated to do whatever he thought necessary to translate his own conceptions of fairness and justice into the law of the land.\n"For Chief Justice Warren, the technical issues traditionally fought over in constitutional cases always seemed to merge into larger questions of fairness. His great concern was expressed in the question he so often asked when the cases were argued before the Court: 'But was it fair?' His conception of fairness was the key to most of the Warren criminal law decisions. When government lawyers tried to justify decisions by traditional legal arguments, Warren would interject, 'Why did you treat him this way?' When the chief justice concluded that an individual had been treated in an unfair manner, he would not let legal rules stand in the way in his effort to remedy the situation.\n"In reaching what he considered the fair result, Warren was not restrained by the demands of precedent, for he considered principle more important. The major decisions of the Warren Court overruled decisions of earlier courts. ..."
1002097
Some people might say its because judges are incorrectly interpreting the law or that they place too much emphasis on the fact thats some please guilty therefore making the whole process quicker (and cheaper).\nSome people may say that certain judges have certain tendencies and look after their own.\nIts wrong whatever it is. That baby rape thing made me sick for days. one hour with me in a soundproof cell. I would happily dispense some justice.
133326
Why is a liberal labeled as such?  A liberal wants to do away with the 2nd Amendment, and limit how average citizens can protect themselves and their property against criminals. Sounds limiting to me, instead of how the word is supposed to mean.
1092914
The Judge can enforce a court order by holding you in contept of court. A crime in most states.
708451
Thats what happens when these "modern" jerk liberals reinvent - reinterpret the Bill of Rights and re-idealize Freedom of Speech and Separation of Church and State (they hide the fact that there is no topic of separation of church and state in the constitution and hope to keep it that way).\n\nThe way the ACLU views it - it is Americans right to freely give out information on building bombs, make home-made weapons and breaking and entering techniques  but you cant defend yourself by using a weapon.   At some point I fully expect the ACLU to start suing citizens for putting up alarms because it offends ex-criminals..... or stereo types against criminals. Sounds too stupid right?  Examples like you covered - proves my point. The ACLU would go to bat for these people posting video on how to break and enter.
888062
Judges have the discretion of issuing sua sponte orders in circumstances where justice requires such orders. Sometimes a judge will recognize a situation that the lawyers don't and will rule accordingly. Other times, judges are just throwing their weight around and making it known to the litigants.
708820
What a travesty of justice, the judge needs to be disbarred and thrown bodily off his/her bench.  I think its very patriotic of the mayor of Hazelton that he decided to continue the fight, this is what all Americans need to do, take the fight to the legal system, challenge the status quo, set precedents that serve the best interests of this country.  Any one want to take up residence in Hazelton to displace the criminal trespassing element?, That would be very patriotic.  Thanks for the informative article.