http://www.geocities.com/bororissa/jud.html

There’s nothing to debate.

Then why do you keep debatnig?

You want to label a judge an “activist” simply because you don’t like his decision. ALl I’m telling you is that PROCEDURALLY, it is impossible for a judge’s to actually be “activist” alter the laws. They are simply able to rule on the issue presented to the court. Judges have zero control over what cases come before them, and zero control over what a court of appeals will do after they rule.

And, by the way, lower court federal judges are bound by Supreme Court precedent. SOO, they can’t even be “activist” if they wanted to. In terms of abortion rulings…currently, the state of the law is that any laws/regulations regarding abortion must comply with the “undue burden” standard as articulated in Casey v> Planned Parenthood, a 1994 case. A federal judge can only rule on whether or not a law/regulation either “fits” in the standards articulated in the Casey decision…or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t, its unconstitutional.

It is actually impossible for lower federal courts to overturn Roe v. Wade — especially consider Roe v. Wade isn’t the current state of abortion law. The only Court capable of overturning Casey - the current standard - is the Supreme Court. However, because of the body of law that has developed, and the number of citizens that rely on the law - it is highly unlikely that 5 judges on the Court will do this. REGARDLESS of what their personal beliefs, they must comply with the law. Otherwise — they’d be “activist judges” wouldn’t they?

*sigh* as much as I’d LOVE to go through and debate this, because I have many arguments, I’m headed out for 2 weeks and don’t have the time to post all I have.
Maybe when I get back I’ll make a post refuting the arguments, but till then…you can debate out with Matt or someone else as long as they want to participate.

Matt,

THANKS!

Kp

Its a buzzword - and you can keep throwing it around, if you want but its meaningless.

use some common sense - consider what I said - you are NEVER in a situation where ONE JUDGE is given carte blanche control over any case. its just not that simple.