Activism

Empathy vs. Sympathy

As the Senate debate continues on Elena Kagan’s confirmation, Republicans have used this opportunity to blast Obama for previously stating that judges should have the empathy to understand the lives of ordinary Americans. Republicans argue that possessing “empathy” is synonymous with “liberal judicial activism,” and have attempted to use this standard to oppose Kagan’s nomination.

Yesterday, Sen. Kaufman of Delaware reminded his colleagues of the actual meaning of “empathy”: 

Likewise, President Obama’s promotion of empathy is not, as his critics suggest, the advocacy of bias. “Empathy,” as a quick look at the dictionary will confirm, is not the same as “sympathy.” “Empathy” means understanding the experiences of another, not identification with or bias toward another. Let me repeat that. “Empathy” means understanding the experiences of another, not identification with or bias toward another. Words have meanings, and we should not make arguments that depend on misconstruing those meanings.

Republicans launched their assault on empathy last year during Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings. What was lost in the hubbub is what the word actually means. Sympathy leads to the kind of bleeding-heart reactionary reasoning that Republicans claim to be afraid of in nominees like Sotomayor and Kagan. Empathy is the quality that enables judges to understand the reasons laws are made, and the real-life implications they have on the lives of Americans. Republicans have access to the same dictionaries as the rest of us—but if they stopped twisting Obama’s words, they would lose one of their favorite empty arguments.

PFAW

Cornyn Twists Kagan Remark, Comes Out Against “Judgment”

Sen. John Cornyn, in his boilerplate remarks about the “judicial activism” conservatives like to associate with Elena Kagan, attempted to throw the Solicitor General’s own words back at her. Kagan, Cornyn insisted, would not rely on the “Constitution ratified by the American people and the laws passed by Congress,” but rather that she would solve tensions “between her Constitutional values” using “her prudence and judgment.” (He demonstrated his contempt for “prudence” and “judgment” by spitting the words out in disgust).

This is what Kagan actually said, in a written response to questions from Cornyn:

Question: In Confirmation Messes, Old and New, 62 U. Chi. L. Rev. 919, 932 (1995), you wrote that “many of the votes a Supreme Court Justice casts have little to do with technical legal ability and much to do with conceptions of value.”

a. Please explain in greater detail what you meant in this statement.

Response: I was referring to constitutional values, by which I mean the fundamental principles articulated and embodied in our Constitution. In some cases, constitutional values point in different directions, and judges must exercise prudence and judgment in resolving the tension between them. In doing so, judges must always look to legal sources—the text, structure, and history of the Constitution, as well as the Supreme Court’s precedents—not to their own personal values, political beliefs, or policy views.

Kagan wasn’t talking about tension in her own values—she was talking about the tension inherent in the values of the Constitution. For more on that point, Cornyn might want to read former Justice David Souter’s excellent explanation of this principle, or even just sit down and read a few recent Supreme Court cases, which typically get to the Court precisely because they embody hard-to-resolve tensions between constitutional values.

He might also want to re-watch Kagan’s debunking of the John Roberts doctrine of the judge-as-umpire, in which she patiently explains that “judging requires judgment':

PFAW

Franken: Roberts Court is Activist

Senator Al Franken was right on about the Roberts Court this afternoon. For years, he said, conservatives have complained that progressives engage in “judicial activism” from the highest court. Most conservatives on the judiciary committee seemed to agree with Elena Kagan’s definition of a judicial activist as a Justice who doesn’t defer to the elected legislative branch, doesn’t respect precedent, and doesn’t decide as narrowly as possible.

Kagan has demonstrated that she would not be an activist or ideological judge. But, as Senator Franken put it, there is no doubt that the Roberts court is an activist court. Let’s hope that if she is confirmed, the future Justice Kagan can bring real humility and a reasonable interpretation of the Constitution back to the highest court.

PFAW

Oiling the Wheels of Justice

We’ve commented before on the oil ties of Judge Martin Feldman, the Reagan-appointed federal judge who struck down President Obama’s moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Now Alliance for Justice has issued a full report on his financial relationship with the energy sector and his refusal to recuse himself from the case. The results are damning. In 2008, for example, Judge Feldman reported energy-related financial holdings valued between $15,000 and $545,000, with a realized income of between $27,000 and $100,500. And yet, despite a statute that specifically requires recusal when a Justice has even a slight financial interest in a case, Judge Feldman did not step aside in the moratorium case. As Nan Aron, the President of Alliance for Justice, said:

Even the most cursory look at his personal financial holdings would lead any reasonable person to say he can't possibly hear this case and stay within the formal rules of recusal, to say nothing of common-sense notions of bias.

Not only does Judge Feldman stand to make a profit from deciding on big oil’s behalf. He also, like conservative-appointed justices across the country, seems eager to impose a pro-corporate ideology on our legal system. It’s judicial activism like this that makes it so crucial to ensure that judicial appointments are part of the conversation during senatorial and presidential elections.

PFAW

The “Irrational Prejudice” Behind DOMA

Yesterday, a federal judge in Massachusetts struck down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act on two separate constitutional challenges. Judge Joseph Tauro, a Nixon appointee, ruled that the provision banning the federal government from recognizing gay people’s marriages violates the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection, and the principle of state sovereignty.

Tauro’s opinion in the equal protection case includes some strong words on the motivation behind DOMA, the 1996 law designed to push back against states granting marriage equality. The main purpose of the law was to disadvantage a particular set of people simply out of dislike for them, he writes…and that sort of motivation doesn’t pass constitutional muster:

This court simply “cannot say that [DOMA] is directed to any identifiable legitimate purpose or discrete objective. It is a status-based enactment divorced from any factual context from which [this court] could discern a relationship to legitimate [government] interests.” Indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.

In the wake of DOMA, it is only sexual orientation that differentiates a married couple entitled to federal marriage-based benefits from one not so entitled. And this court can conceive of no way in which such a difference might be relevant to the provision of the benefits at issue. By premising eligibility for these benefits on marital status in the first instance, the federal government signals to this court that the relevant distinction to be drawn is between married individuals and unmarried individuals. To further divide the class of married individuals into those with spouses of the same sex and those with spouses of the opposite sex is to create a distinction without meaning. And where, as here, “there is no reason to believe that the disadvantaged class is different, in relevant respects” from a similarly situated class, this court may conclude that it is irrational prejudice that motivates the challenged classification. As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It seems pretty straight-forward to conclude that the Constitution doesn’t allow Congress to discriminate against people just because they dislike them…but, of course, conservative groups are already calling itactivism.”
 

PFAW

Epstein Echoes Sessions: “Massive Resistance” to Citizens United

Today I went back to the Heritage Foundation for their annual “Scholars and Scribes” panel reviewing the recent and upcoming activities of the Supreme Court. There was some discussion of judicial activism, but most of the panelists seemed to have finally given up on the claim that conservative Justices have acted as neutral “umpires” in the past year.

What is surprising is that, now that the Court’s decision in Citizens United ruined the “judicial activism” mantra for the Right, a new tactic has apparently taken hold. During a question and answer session, conservative legal scholar Richard Epstein echoed Senator Jeff Sessions in comparing the Citizens United decision to, of all things, Brown v. Board of Education. His take was slightly different and, if possible, even more unhinged from reality. Those of us who oppose and are working to overturn the Citizens United ruling, Epstein said, “look a little bit like the same kind of massive resistance” engendered by Brown v. Board.

To compare the 93% of Americans who think that there should be limits on corporate political spending to the recalcitrant racists who tried to stop the desegregation of public schools is absurd and offensive. If conservatives are trying to paint corporations as victims akin to those who have suffered from institutionalized racism, they’re going to be fighting an uphill battle.

PFAW

Jon Kyl Attacks Women, Older Workers, Baby Seals

Today, when questioning the first panel of witnesses for the Elena Kagan confirmation, Senator Jon Kyl decided not to ask questions, but simply to attack those who had agreed to testify.

Instead of, say, listening to the witnesses, or even ignoring them, he accused three witnesses testifying about sex discrimination, age discrimination, and the devastating impact of the Exxon Valdez spill of demanding a Justice who would rule for them. All they wanted, he claimed, was “results oriented judging.”

He didn’t give them a chance to answer the accusation, so maybe we can answer for them.

No, Senator Kyl, all we want is a Justice who will follow the law.

In Ledbetter, the Court read the law in a cramped and unnatural way in order to limit the right of women to sue for discrimination. In Gross, the Court arbitrarily changed the standard used to determine discrimination on the basis of age. And in Exxon v. Baker, the Court invented a limit on punitive damages out of whole cloth—the ruling was so bad that even the Heritage Foundation thought it was judicial activism.

In the Ledbetter, Gross and Exxon cases, the Court went out of its way to side with corporations and defend them from people who were trying to hold them accountable.

Remind me again, Senator Kyl: what’s the definition of “results oriented judging?”

PFAW

Not Activism, Patriotism

[Thurgood Marshall] taught us all what it means to love our country enough to work to make it a little better, a little stronger and a little closer to what it's supposed to be. That's not activism. That's patriotism.

Stephanie Jones’ op-ed in the Washington Post this morning explains perfectly why the Republican line of attack against Justice Marshall is so, so wrong. All senators who have hopped on to the anti-Marshall train this week need to read it, and then explain themselves.
 

PFAW

Coburn Wants the Supreme Court to Stop Congress from Spending

Senator Tom Coburn just launched an . . . interesting line of questioning against Elena Kagan, claiming that the Supreme Court has a broad mandate to stop Congress from running up a national debt.

SCOTUSblog’s initial notes of Coburn’s statement:

The Commerce Clause has gotten us to a place where we'll have a $1.6 Trillion deficit for our kids to pay. We have this expansive cost, and we have to have some limit on it. If the courts aren't going to limit within original intent, we have to throw out most of the Congress.

Actually, Senator Coburn, the American people do have a way to “throw out most of the Congress” if we’re unhappy with what they're doing. In fact, we get a chance to do it every two years.

Senator Cardin, following Coburn, put it just right: “His definition of original intent is similar to some of my colleague’s definition of judicial activism . . .  you use it to get results.”

PFAW

Justice Thomas, Activist

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog has done an impressive analysis of the Supreme Court’s decisions this term, and found several surprising results. Among these is pretty clear evidence that Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the most conservative Justices on the court, is also by far the most willing to rewrite established law and overrule judicial precedent:

Among all the Justices, it is in fact Scalia and Thomas – frequently heralded by conservatives as ideal members of the Court – who hesitate the least in invalidating legislation or (with respect to Thomas) calling for the overruling of prior precedent. They not only joined the Citizens United majority, but they would also have held unconstitutional the “honest services” statute (Skilling), the civil commitment statute (Comstock), and the ruling upholding a beach-erosion statute (Stop the Beach).

Just as fascinating is Justice Thomas’s openness to reconsidering almost every issue in the law that he views as wrongly decided. This Term, he wrote eight separate opinions suggesting the reconsideration of existing law: McDonald (incorporation); Berghuis v. Smith (fair cross-section requirement for juries); Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz v. United States (commercial speech); Maryland v. Shatzer (custodial interrogation); Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter (interlocutory appeals); Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder (immigration); United States v. O’Brien (jury trial rights); and Wilkins v. Gaddy (cruel and unusual punishment). 

[Emphasis is mine].

We can’t say it here enough: it’s stunning that conservative Senators are still throwing around the term “judicial activism” with a straight face.
 

PFAW

Kagan Defends Marshall

As we and others have noted, many Republican Senators have adopted the perplexing tactic of attacking Kagan’s strong ties to civil rights giant and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Today, Kagan masterfully defended Justice Marshall’s judicial philosophy against Senator Kyl’s accusations of judicial activism.

Senator Kyl accused Justice Marshall of favoring the disadvantaged over the powerful – a critique that may reveal more about Senator Kyl than Justice Marshall. But as Kagan put it, Justice Marshall’s philosophy wasn’t about unfairly advantaging one group over another – it was about the “Court taking seriously claims that were not taken seriously anywhere else.” I think all of us, with the possible exception of Senator Kyl, can be glad that the Court gave Marshall and his colleagues a fair hearing in Brown v Board.

PFAW

Kyl and Activism

John Kyl says that senators have been talking about the “alleged activism” of the current Court.

I think we can just go ahead and call it “activism.”

PFAW

Hatch’s Citizens United Tirade

Sen. Orrin Hatch spent his entire question time lambasting the arguments Kagan made as Solicitor General defending campaign finance limits in Citizens United v. FEC, and trying to get Kagan to express her personal views on the case. She declined.

“I want to make a clear distinction,” Kagan said, “between my role as an advocate and any opinions I might have as a judge.”

The result was something of a half-hour soapbox for Sen. Hatch to heap praise on Citizens United (and criticize its critics) while Kagan repeatedly distanced herself from the issue. Hatch might want to take a look at our recent poll, which shows that the critics of Citizens United include the majority of Americans.

It’s remarkable that Hatch, who has always spoken so highly of judicial restraint, is so happy to have judges overruling acts of Congress. Apparently he’s changed his opinion on “judicial activism.”

PFAW

Kagan: A Fake John Roberts, A Radical Homosexualist, and a Sign of The End Times

As the questioning in Elena Kagan's confirmation hearing finally gets underway, right-wing groups are busy releasing statements and reports claiming she is everything from a "clear and present danger to the Constitution" to a sign of the end times.

The Judicial Crisis Network's first day write-up is particularly confusing, as they seem convinced that Kagan is trying to "disguise herself as the next John Roberts" 

The Senate Judiciary Committee just concluded the first day of Elena Kagan's hearings to replace Justice Stevens on the Supreme Court. Our summary of Day 1: She may not be a Constitutionalist, but she sure plays one on TV.

As we expected, Kagan followed in Justice Sotomayor's footsteps and disguised herself as the next John Roberts, and Democratic Senators did their best to help her hide from her record of extreme activism on abortion, 2nd Amendment rights, and the scope of government power. According to Kagan, "what the Supreme Court does is to safeguard the rule of law, through a commitment to even-handedness, principle, and restraint." In the immortal words of The Who, "Don't get fooled again."

Seeing as it was John Roberts who "disguised" himself as a umpire who would just call balls and strikes and then, once confirmed, revealed himself to be a blatant judicial activist, that is a pretty ironic criticism for JCN to level.

But at least the JCN's complaints are at least coherent, unlike those of Gordon Klingenschmitt:

Chaplain Klingenschmitt has contracted with a team of investigative journalists including Brian Camenker, Amy Contrada and Peter LaBarbera to investigate and report breaking news about Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan.

While serving as Dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan's administration demanded and forced Blue-Cross, Blue-Shield to cover sex-change operations as an "equal right" paid benefit, harming gender-confused students, as confirmed in 2006 and 2008 by Harvard Crimson newspaper articles.

Kagan also offered sympathetic ear to lesbian group Lambda's Transgender Task Force demand to force all women to share public bathrooms and locker-rooms with cross-dressing men, which is now part of Harvard's dormitory policy, according to the report.

"This is further proof Elena Kagan cannot be trusted to impartially rule on Obamacare or bathroom bills like ENDA, since she believes sin is a Constitutional right," said Chaplain Klingenschmitt, "but rights come from God, who never grants the right to sin."

Because if anything is going to clarify these confirmation hearings, is a report written by a bunch of militantly anti-gay activists like Klingenschmitt, Camenker, and LaBarbera ... and now that is exactly what we have:

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan is committed to the radical campaign pushing acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism as “civil rights." Her unprecedented activism supporting that view as Dean of Harvard Law School (2003-2009) calls into question her ability to judge fairly and impartially on same-sex “marriage” and other homosexuality- or transgender-related issues that may come before the nation’s highest court.

Kagan’s record while Dean of Harvard Law School (HLS) demonstrates her agreement with the goals of the radical GLBT (gay lesbian bisexual transgender) movement and her solidarity with those activists. Working hand in hand with students to expel military recruiters in protest over the Armed Forces’ ban on homosexuals (a “moral injustice of the first order,” she wrote) is only the most obvious example of Kagan’s passionate dedication to this controversial and immoral agenda.

Kagan’s celebration and active promotion of the radical homosexualist and transgender worldview has profound implications. As a Supreme Court Justice, she could be expected to overturn traditional law and understandings of family, marriage, military order, and even our God-given sex (what transgender radicals call “gender identity or expression”). She is a most dangerous nominee who must be opposed by all who care about religious freedom, the preservation of marriage and traditional values.

There should be grave concern over Kagan’s issues advocacy concerning “sexual orientation.” Even before her nomination to the Court, her enthusiastic and committed pro-homosexuality activism at Harvard (including her recruitment to the faculty of radical “gay” activist scholars like former ACLU lawyer William Rubenstein and elevation of radical out lesbian Professor Janet Halley) was highly significant for the nation. Now, it is imperative that Senators and the U.S. public gain an accurate understanding of the radical, pro-homosexual environment that was Kagan’s home at Harvard – and the GLBT legal agenda that Kagan herself helped foster as Dean.

But that is actually quite reasonable compared to this statement from Tim LaHaye and Craig Parshall claiming that Kagan "presents a danger as old as the book of Genesis" and that her confirmation could be a sign of the End Times:

First, if she becomes a Supreme Court justice, she could be the all-important fifth vote in favor of interpreting our Constitution, not according to the vision of our Founding Fathers, but from an international law standpoint, a concept that would have seemed treasonous to our Founders. Three justices on the Court have already relied on foreign law in their opinions: Justices Kennedy, Breyer and Ginsburg. Recently-installed justice Sotomayor has praised Ruth Bader Ginsberg's penchant for international law, so we can assume she will be a legal globalist as well. Five justices create a majority and with Kagan on board they could begin radically steering us away from view of the Constitution that honors our Judeo-Christian heritage and founding.

Second, if this happens, it will usher America into a new age of global law. With Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court, international legal standards could well be imposed on Americans by the High Court's legal globalists, even without the Senate approving a specific international treaty. In our new novel, Edge of Apocalypse, we show how this trend might create a modern-day legal nightmare for conscientious Christians. We need only to turn to Genesis chapter 11 to see how God opposed the ancient attempt at global unification: the Lord declared the tragic result that would follow if a centralized group of fallen men were to consolidate an unlimited, unrestrained power over the planet.

Keep your eyes on the Supreme Court's view of global law. It could be one of the most telling 'signs of the times.'

Cross-posted from RightWingWatch.org

PFAW

Star of the Kagan Hearings is the Corporate Court

Democratic Senators used the opportunity of Elena Kagan’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings today focus attention on nine people who were not in the room. The Senators called the Roberts Court out for some of its more outrageous decisions as they began to reframe the debate on the role of the Court and the Constitution. Central to the discussion was the Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, in which it overturned a century of settled law to allow corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, was one of the chief designers of the campaign finance rules that the Supreme Court knocked down in Citizens United. He said:

[W]hen a decision like the one handed down earlier this year by a 5-4 vote in the Citizens United case uproots longstanding precedent and undermines our democratic system, the public’s confidence in the Court can’t help but be shaken. I was very disappointed in that decision, and in the Court for reaching out to change the landscape of election law in a drastic and wholly unnecessary way. By acting in such an extreme and unjustified manner, the Court badly damaged its own integrity. By elevating the rights of corporations over the rights of people, the Court damaged our democracy.

Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island took on the Court’s pro-corporate leanings by brilliantly co-opting Chief Justice Roberts’ famous baseball metaphor:

Only last week, the Rent-A-Center decision concluded that an employee who challenges as unconscionable an arbitration demand must have that challenge decided by the arbitrator. And the Citizens United decision -- yet another 5-4 decision -- created a constitutional right for corporations to spend unlimited money in American elections, opening our democratic system to a massive new threat of corruption and corporate control.
There is an unmistakable pattern. For all the talk of umpires and balls and strikes at the Supreme Court, the strike zone for corporations gets better every day.

Ted Kaufman of Delaware told Kagan, “I plan to spend the bulk of my time asking you about the Court’s business cases, based on my concern about its apparent bias.”

The Court’s decision last fall in the Citizens United case, which several of my colleagues have mentioned, is the latest example of the Court’s pro-corporate bent. The majority opinion in that case should put the nail in the coffin of claims that “judicial activism” is a sin committed by judges of only one political ideology.

What makes the Citizens United decision particularly troubling is that it is at odds with what some of the Court’s most recently confirmed members said during their confirmation hearings. We heard a great deal then about their deep respect for existing precedent. Now, however, that respect seems to vanish whenever it interferes with a desired pro-business outcome.

Al Franken of Minnesota explained the real impact of campaign finance laws:

Now, you’ve heard a lot about this decision already today, but I want to come at it from a slightly different angle.
There is no doubt: the Roberts Court’s disregard for a century of federal law—and decades of the Supreme Court’s own rulings—is wrong. It’s shocking. And it’s torn a gaping hole in our election laws.

So of course I’m worried about how Citizens United is going to change our elections.

But I am more worried about how this decision is going to affect our communities—and our ability to run those communities without a permission slip from big business.

Citizens United isn’t just about election law. It isn’t just about campaign finance.

It’s about seat belts. It’s about clean air and clean water. It’s about energy policy and the rights of workers and investors. It’s about health care. It’s about our ability to pass laws that protect the American people even if it hurts the corporate bottom line.

As Justice Stevens said, it’s about our “need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government.

And finally, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois summed up the retort to any GOP Senator complaining about “judicial activism”:

We've heard from those across the aisle about their support for traditionalism, and their opposition to judicial activism. I have two words for them: Citizens United.

We’re looking forward to hearing a lot more about Citizens United and the Corporate Court as the hearings progress
 

PFAW

Judicial Activism?

In response to the GOP’s repeated accusations of Elena Kagan’s so-called judicial activism, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) fired back with a quote from Justice John Paul Stevens’ sharp dissent in Citizens United: “Essentially, five Justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.”

As Senator Durbin pointedly noted, the Court’s reversal of decades of precedent was “espoused by men who swore they would never engage in judicial activism” – men like Chief Justice John Roberts, who during his own confirmation hearings spoke about how judges are like umpires because they “don’t make the rules, they apply them” and must have “the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent”…and then went on to author the majority opinion in Citizens United. “If that isn’t judicial activism,” said Durbin, “then I don’t know what is.”

And as for the “well-known activist judges” with whom Ms. Kagan has been “associating”, Sen. Durbin spoke out against Republicans’ criticism that Kagan might be a judge in the mold of Thurgood Marshall, for whom she clerked. He instead praised the former justice, citing his critical role in successfully arguing the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education, and saying that Marshall had changed America for the better. “If that is an activist mind at work, we should be grateful as a nation.”

PFAW

Cornyn Defines Activism

Sen. John Cornyn was waxing indignant a few minutes ago about what he calls the “activist vision” of certain judicial nominees.

He helpfully defined his terms:

“This activist vision takes the power from the people to make the law and change the law and gives it to the judiciary.”

Cornyn was no doubt shocked, then, by the Rehnquist Court’s decision in Bush v. Gore, in which it called off the counting of votes in a presidential election. Or by the Roberts Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, in which it limited the power of democratically elected bodies to make rules about who spends money in elections.

It must be difficult for Cornyn to see judges appointed by presidents of his own party fall into that kind of activism.
 

PFAW

Sessions' Dubious Sources

In Sen. Session’s opening remarks at the Kagan hearings, he lambasted her for association with so-called “activist” judges—including revered civil rights defender Thurgood Marshall, the widely respected Abner Mikva, and the Republicans' new, desperate talking point, Israeli judge Arahon Barak.

Sessions’ choice of words was interesting:

She clerked for Judge Mikva and Justice Marshall, each a well-known liberal activist judge. And she has called Israeli Judge Aharon Barak-who has been described as the most activist judge in the world-her hero.

Let’s take a look at who has been describing Judge Barak as the “most activist judge in the world”:

On Wednesday, Judge Robert Bork, whose own Supreme Court nomination in 1987 resulted in a Senate vote against confirmation, said Judge Barak “may be the worst judge on the planet, the most activist,” and argued that Ms. Kagan’s admiration for him is “disqualifying in and of itself.”

Yes, that’s Judge Robert Bork, the ultra-conservative whose Supreme Court nomination was sunk 23 years ago, and has been going to bat against Democratic Supreme Court nominees ever since.

In fact, Barak has done his so-called “activist judging” in a country with no written Constitution, and has received praise from conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

This isn’t about Barak or about a real threat of “judicial activism”—it’s about Senate Republicans desperately reaching for something to distort.
 

UPDATE: Sen. Jon Kyl is singing the same tune on Barak. Is this really all they have?

PFAW

Jeff Sessions Gets Started

Senator Sessions pledged that Republicans would hold a respectful confirmation.

In the next breath he slammed Kagan’s legal experience, then moved on to attacking her college thesis, complaining about her support of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, misrepresenting her opposition to DADT (and claiming she was anti-military), and distorting her argument in Citizens United. Just for good measure, he smeared Justice Thurgood Marshall for being too activist, and then demanded that the Supreme Court engage in activism to limit “unprecedented government power” (by which he seems to mean stimulus and health care reform.)

You stay classy, GOP.

PFAW

Fieldtrip to the Heritage Foundation

As a new arrival in DC (I started interning here two weeks ago), I was thrilled to get a chance to visit the Heritage Foundation for the first time on Wednesday. I know everyone here at People For was flattered to learn that the folks on their “Myth of the Conservative Court” panel had been reading our Rise of the Corporate Court report. A lot.

The panelists – Todd Gaziano, Hans von Spakovsky, and Manuel Miranda -- took umbrage at progressive groups like PFAW using the term “judicial activism” because, well, it belongs to them. And they like the decisions being handed down!

Spakovsky argued that progressives have called the Citizens United decision judicial activism merely because we didn’t like the outcome. He’s certainly right that we don’t like it—and neither do 80% of Americans—but we agree that our dislike doesn’t make it judicial activism. What makes it judicial activism is that the Court based its decision on utterly specious Constitutional grounds, overturning over a hundred years of settled law and its own precedent in the process. John Roberts promised to be a baseball umpire, just calling balls and strikes, but as PFAW President Michael B. Keegan pointed out, “in baseball terms, Citizens United was the equivalent of grabbing the bat and using it to beat the pitcher.”

Much to my shock, Gaziano admitted during the panel that the conservatives on the Court had exhibited pro-corporate judicial activism in one case, Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, deciding in Exxon’s favor for subjective rather than purely Constitutional or statutory reasons. So what makes him think that the Conservative judges weren’t influenced by their corporate bias in the other cases outlined in our Corporate Court report?

What was most remarkable about the panel, though, probably wasn’t the contortions that conservatives are willing to go through in order to deny “judicial activism” by conservatives on the Court—it’s that they’re still clearly trying to use it against progressives. That and the lunch they served afterwards. It was delicious.

PFAW