when courts do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law through judicial will. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. “Judicial activism” is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court illegally takes for itself the powers of Congress, rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.
Though reluctant to criticize themselves, courts have referenced the term “judicial activism” in 975 reported cases as of Oct. 6, 2020, including 399 federal court decisions and 554 state court decisions.
In this regard, judicial activism is a way for liberals to avoid the regular legislative means of enacting laws in order to ignore public opinion and dodge public debate. While originalist judges sometimes differ among themselves in specific court cases, left-wing judicial activists always vote in a way that advances left-wing policies, no matter how inconsistent they are.[3][4]
The cradle of judicial activism is the USA.[1] However, it is seen in many other countries, such as the UK[5] and Israel, along with a large number of countries that legalized social taboos simply because of court actions.
Courts in California — both state and federal ones — frequently engage in judicial activism, invariably based on political ideology and personal feelings. One major example of this is the relatively recent California Supreme Court decision In re Marriage Cases, wherein four California Supreme Court justices (who are appointed, not elected) unilaterally overruled the will of the people of the state of California, and legalized same-sex “marriage”. Proposition 22, which recognized the traditional definition of marriage had previously been put in place by a majority of California voters, but this did not deter the liberal judges of the court from acting. In response, a majority of California voters passed Proposition 8, which amended California’s Constitution to uphold the sanctity of marriage, stemming the tide of the liberal homosexual assault on marriage before it was too late.
Judicial activism should not be confused with the courts’ Constitutionally mandated rule in enforcing limitations on government power and preserving the Constitutional structure of government, as they did in Bush v. Gore, Boy Scouts v. Dale, and D.C. v. Heller, and as the Supreme Court of the United States should have done with ObamaCare.
Judicial activism rarely has a positive impact. Some cite Bolling v. Sharpe,[6] the companion case to Brown v. Board of Education, which desegregated schools in Washington, D.C. as an example of beneficial judicial activism. The Equal Protection Clause, which was cited in Brown, does not apply to the District of Columbia, only to the States. However, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that segregated schools in the city were still unconstitutional because it was also a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Although the impact was clearly desirable, the due process clause typically only applies to legal processes such as criminal trials, not to segregation. Also, the same result could have been achieved simply by an act of Congress, since they have control over the District’s school system. Legal scholars Cass Sunstein and Randy Barnett agreed in a debate that it was hard to reconcile the ruling with the Constitution, in spite of its positive impact.[7] These rare cases are considered to be among the hardest for the Supreme Court to decide.
Recent Examples:
Barack Obama filled the courts with radical judges who ignore the law for political purposes. Under President Trump’s Administration, these judges came out of the woodwork in their attempts to stop his agenda.
In New York, a case was brought against the leadership of the ‘We Build the Wall’ movement. The people behind the case hated the average Americans who built a wall on the southern border when the Democrats were trying to prevent President Trump from protecting the country, upholding the law, and having the government build a wall on the border. The communist gang took Brian Kolfage, Steve Bannon, and others to court on BS charges. Then in one case, the Obama judge suppressed evidence that exonerated the plaintiff. [9]
Obama judge Amy Totenberg in Georgia to this day won’t release the Halderman report requested by the court covering the Dominion voting machines used in the state. CISA released a report that indicated that these machines had serious flaws that bad actors could manipulate to steal elections. Judge Totenberg won’t allow Americans to see the Halderman report that the CISA report was in response to.
In DC Obama Judge Christopher Cooper wouldn’t recuse himself from Dr. Simone Gold’s case covering her actions on Jan 6. The courageous doctor was in the Capitol calling for Americans to address COVID. Her house was raided by a gang of FBI agents and she was arrested. Despite Judge Cooper knowing doctor Gold and having been rebuked by the doctor when asking her out on a date when in school, he didn’t recuse himself from the case. He then proceeded to through the doctor in prison for speaking inside the Capitol on Jan 6. [10]
In Michigan, Obama Judge Linda Parker ignored President Trump’s case on the integrity of the 2020 Election raised by attorney Sidney Powell. It’s not clear if she ever looked at it. Then Judge Judge Linda V. Parker threw the case out. There were over 100 legal affidavits from Michigan citizens alleging fraud in the 2020 election in Michigan. Then after ignoring the evidence and the case and throwing it out, Judge Linda Parker charged Sidney Powell and eight other attorneys $175,000 for daring to bring the lawsuit in the first place.[11]
Other Obama judges like Amy Berman Jackson should be in jail for her actions against Paul Manafort and Roger Stone based on the Russia collusion lie. She was part of the coup.
The list goes on and on. Now Obama/Biden are attempting to fill the courts with more corrupt political and woke judges.
FOX News reported on Biden’s actions:
The Democratic-controlled Senate is poised to approve another slate of President Biden’s judicial nominees with a history of working for left-leaning organizations that represent abortion interests, the gun control lobby, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The judicial nominations are Biden’s way of “paying back the left-wing dark money groups who spent over a billion dollars to help elect him and Senate Democrats,” Carrie Severino, president of Judicial Crisis Network, told Fox News Digital.
“These nominees will happily deliver the left’s policy preferences from the bench, regardless of the law,” Severino added. “If confirmed, they will be some of the most radical judges in the country.”
Sources:
