Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The New 'Activist' Judges

By Molly Ivins, AlterNet. Posted August 24, 2006.


Somehow, activist judges are held responsible for gay marriage, Roe v. Wade and everything else Americans disagree about.
Ivins

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Molly Ivins

Molly Ivins AlterNet Archive
An archive of the great progressive columnist's writings.
Jun 21, 2007

Stand Up Against the "Surge"
We are the people who run this country. We are the deciders and we need to raise hell.
Jan 12, 2007

Now They're All For Bipartisanship
Apparently, the people of this country did not elect liberals to Congress last week. Nope, they elected populists!
Nov 15, 2006

More stories by Molly Ivins

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Another bee-you-ti-ful example of the right-wing media getting it all wrong. Here they are having the nerve to mutter in public about "activist judges" because Judge Anna Diggs Taylor has pointed out that spying without a warrant is illegal in this country -- so warrantless telephone tapping is illegal in this country.

Improbably enough, the first complaint of many of these soi-disant legal scholars is that Taylor's decision is not well written. No judicial masterpiece, they sneer. Nevertheless, warrantless spying is illegal.

Did it ever occur to these literary critics that Taylor has a lay-down hand? The National Security Agency program is flat unconstitutional, and for those who insist this means Osama bin Laden wins, it's also ridiculously easy to fix so that it is constitutional. Conservatives in this country have been yipping in chorus for years about "activist judges," and frankly, like fools, many of you bought into the phony political rhetoric about those terrible jurists.

Somehow, activist judges are held responsible for gay marriage, Roe v. Wade and everything else Americans disagree about, as though Americans would never disagree without their encouragement.

Conservatives have been mad at the Supreme Court since it decided to desegregate the schools in 1954 and seen fit to blame the federal bench for everything that has happened since then that they don't like.

As any liberal could have told you, the conservatives didn't want a right-wing shift on the nation's courts because of "social issues" -- that's just a handy political ploy.

Honestly, people, haven't you figured out what this is all about yet? Money. The conservatives are in a snit about "liberal courts" because of money. Corporations being prosecuted for breaking the law! Tobacco companies forced to pay huge fines! Oil and chemical companies made to pay for cleanup at Superfund sites! Oh, the horror, the horror.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page couldn't stop shivering over it for years. "This is the richest business term in recent memory," Mark Levy, a Supreme Court litigator, told The Wall Street Journal, which has stopped quivering at last. Moving right along in the long-drawn-out battle to deny ordinary citizens access to their own courts, the justices closed down the right to allow class-action securities cases in state courts. The court also kept out of a lower-court decision preventing taxpayers from suing to stop tax breaks that states and municipalities use to lure big business, a notorious example of raging bad policy.

Meanwhile, what a nice gift from the federal bench to the insurance companies when a federal judge in Mississippi decided that hurricane insurance policies excluding water damage are "valid and enforceable." As many of our fellow citizens had an opportunity to learn during Katrina, it's a challenge to sit around in a class IV hurricane, trying to figure out which is wind and which is water damage. "Ooops, there goes the roof, probably wind, followed by a huge run of waves rolling over the house, could be water."

Insurance company stocks went up across the board after the decision, while the industry kindly advised its clients to "keep you eyes wide open when buying new homeowners' insurance." Congratulations to the Katrina survivors who were hanging on by their fingernails.

Money, money, money is the motif of the "New Activist" federal judges, but they have also been busy, busy limiting congressional authority and individual rights. As People for the American Way notes, federal appellate courts -- effectively the court of last resort for most Americans -- are working on: questioning the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act, overturning the National Labor Relations Board rulings against anti-union discrimination and other unfair labor practices by employers, allowing the Bush administration to keep secret the records of the Cheney energy task force and rewriting by court order a state law on First Amendment activity.

Other Bush appellate judges have ruled to deny protection to workers who file claims of race and disability discrimination, made it harder to protect the environment, and issued other decisions that will affect our lives and liberties for decades. Activist judges, indeed.

Digg!

Molly Ivins writes about politics, Texas and other bizarre happenings.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Wake Up Americans!!
Posted by: Jerry on Aug 24, 2006 2:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Molly, you are doing the country a great service. I read you weekly, have seen you on C-Span panels (before the Right Wing took it over). You have been trying to wake up the people because their rights are being taken away on prime time TV! The country is sliding into corporate fascism. Americans, wake up! everything we fought and died for is at risk. Yes, the 'bad old days' can come back, and Big Money is working overtime to see that they do. Organize! Resist! Organize! The people are the power!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wake Up Americans!!
Posted by: Jerry on Aug 24, 2006 2:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Molly, you are doing the country a great service. I read you weekly, have seen you on C-Span panels (before the Right Wing took it over). You have been trying to wake up the people because their rights are being taken away on prime time TV! The country is sliding into corporate fascism. Americans, wake up! everything we fought and died for is at risk. Yes, the 'bad old days' can come back, and Big Money is working overtime to see that they do. Organize! Resist! Organize! The people are the power!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Little People
Posted by: Sparks56 on Aug 24, 2006 5:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Courts and judges don't really exist for the "little people". At least not in the brave new Bushworld. Little poeple need to understand they are put on this earth to work, consume, and then die quietly, preferably before too many Social Security payments.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The Little People Posted by: woogawooga
» RE: The Little People Posted by: boing007
"Activist" is a two-edged sword. "Bad Activist" and "Good Activist"
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 24, 2006 11:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The courts are "(good) activist" when they decide to turn back the clock to the old GOP post-WWI days. Yes, it is true that the courts are changing our US social conditions. But when they are returning our society to the good old days, when men were men and women knew their place, that's only a correction.

It's only "(bad) activist" when directed toward progressive populist empowerment of the middle and working classes. The court decisions that have undermined Congress' assistance to the handicapped and to workers with family leave needs, for instance, are just returning us to the ways things always were before the do-gooders messed them up. Now that's "(good) activism."

The GOP has always made things better by separating the sheep from their shepards, doing good by doing well. People wouldn't be rich if they didn't really deserve it. Why, that would be feudalism, or tyranny, or plutocracy. Ms. Ivins, are you call the GOP tyrants?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

tyrants
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 25, 2006 2:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The GOP Bushie politicians are not only tyrants, they are electoral criminals, war criminals, mass murderers, poverty creators, environment destroyers and all the other earmarks of neofascist criminal elements. Impeach them now or fall ever further into neofascist hegemony and kiss American democracy goodbye.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: tyrants Posted by: balderkitty
» RE: tyrants & prevaricators Posted by: rsaxto
» RE: tyrants Posted by: aonghus36
» balderkitty Posted by: kww355
» RE: tyrants Posted by: longlivecheney
When Bad = Supports the Constitution
Posted by: BeeGee on Aug 25, 2006 11:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course, Judge Anna Diggs Taylor should be applauded for upholding the U.S. Constitution. And of course, she is bound to be labeled "activist" for doing so!

Surprising but true, there is a segment of the far Right (some in my own family!) who are actually afraid of the Constitution -- largely on security grounds but on religious and social as well. These are the people who consider the ACLU communistic and donate money to counter-organizations pledged to defend the "decent" folk against those who would make them abide by the Constitution and uphold Federal law based on it.

When a portion of this country doesn't even agree with the basic tenets of its foundation, those who do must work overtime to maintain what basic freedoms we still have!

Thanks, Molly, for contuning to remind us...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» incarceration envy Posted by: kww355
They eat children, too...
Posted by: Bic Pentameter on Aug 25, 2006 12:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't take a nutritionist to convince children that they need more ice cream and brownies. But, once so accustomed, the best nutritionist will find it difficult to convince them that it would be 'good' to forego such fare in favor of green peas and broccoli. When your oldest takes out the garbage, mows the lawn and gets a driver's license, maybe you'll give him/her an allowance and let them drive the younger ones to their activities - but only with the responsibility to assure their safety. Not the privilege to boss them around for the sheer pleasure of it, or take their stuff and coerce their continuing silence.

No mom-and-pop outfit can build our infrastructure, let alone a space shuttle or Hubbell telescope. Large corporations are crucial to our modern lives. We could dial back the affluence level and treat better the production workers who provide us our toys, but unless we are willing to live the village life, the village cannot support us. Without a support structure operating behind the scenes, it's back to the horse and buggy for us. But I'd prefer that corporations have certain minimal responsibilities rather than seemingly unlimited privilege.

Like those children, though, we prefer to hear that we are the greatest and everything will be OK - we just need newer and better gadgets to play with. Or maybe it's more sex and meaner looking wrestlers on TV. More gloating privileges, better cars. We won't vote for the inconvenient truth, or contribute much for any candidate. Neither will we vote for anyone who doesn't raise the funds and get themself on TV with plenty of back slapping.

We insist that our politicians raise the funds, and won't give them a nickel. Is it any surprise that while we're rolling around with chocolate on our faces, there are others who are busy making the system work the way THEY want it to? He that pays the piper calls the tune.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oh c'mon. A little substance helps the humor.
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Aug 25, 2006 2:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ms Ivins off-humor piece is written better than the Diggs decision. The issue is whether the decision has merit to stand on appeal; it won't--the administration will inevitably invoke national security interests and the entire thing will be classified. But while that is going on, it is informative to actually look at the decision, and determine its "rightness and wrongness".

First, the wrongness: The fourth ammendment is quite arguably sufficiently vague enough to allow some room for the intercept of conversations involving persons overseas without violating our civil liberties.

Now, the rightness: When Congress specifically sets forth THE procedure that the executive branch must utilize to intercept such conversations--via FISA--and the executive ignores it, then that is an illegal abuse of executive authority.

While reasonable people can debate the merit of allowing expedited intercepts of phone conversations/electronic communications originating in other countries and destined for this one, reasonable people should not have to debate the "merit" of the executive branch adhering to the laws set forth by Congress.

So, the hem-hawing on the Diggs decision that Ms Ivins is so miffed about goes right to the heart of what restrictions our Constitution places on our government, and it never hurts for the people to examine our Constitution a little more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» 'Scuse Me Posted by: kittyhegemann
» RE: 'Scuse Me Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: 'Scuse Me Posted by: hms2004
» Pardon me... Posted by: ABetterFuture
» RE: 'Scuse Me Posted by: Jesse
» RE: 'Scuse Me Posted by: ABetterFuture
We have been trying
Posted by: joydg on Aug 28, 2006 5:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, right! We tried for four years to stop Bush getting reelected. We rallied well, but the voting booths were rigged and investigation was thwarted. Where are the people? We are trying, we are out here, ...now where is the leadership for the people to march with?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We have been trying Posted by: aonghus36
Judges With No Power
Posted by: michaeltwatson on Aug 28, 2006 3:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The corporate and insurance interests of the world are doing all that you say, Molly; they are also doing more. They have slowly convinced the American public that it is in the public interest to deny the average citizen access to the justice system. The latest, and highly successful attempts, have been in depriving injured victims of medical error the ability to seek compensation for their injuries. Despite recent reliable studies that verify as many as 190,000 patients killed each year by hospital error, the insurance companies politicians are trying to place a cap on the value of those lives lost. That is why I wrote my book, America's Tunnel Vision--How Insurance Companies' Propagnada Is Corrupting Medicine and Law. The insurance and corporate world has for too long succeeded in blaming the high cost of medical treatment on the injured patients and their lawyers; but the Congressional Budget Office has determined that the cost of insurance for lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, in total is less than 1% of the cost of all healthcare. It is time that the right wing quit blaming the courts for all of society's ills. We should all be thankful that we have a court and jury system to protect us from their excesses. Michael Townes Watson. www.StopMedicalError.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is this a joke?
Posted by: longlivecheney on Aug 29, 2006 2:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Right-wing media? Conservative judicial activism? Is this a joke? What, are liberals just making it up as they go along now? This article is absurd. Liberals like Ivins are forced to use their trump card of "greedy republicanism" to quell complaints of an nutty judge whose opinion is even being criticized by liberal law professors. The idea that some of you take this argument seriously just goes to show how far the left has fallen off the ledge of credibility.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]