LA Times: Roberts is No Umpire
By Curt Levey Posted in Roberts — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
For the latest attempt by liberals – as part of their "so are you" strategy – to redefine judicial activism, see yesterday's Los Angeles Times. In the Times article, judicial activism is defined by the paper's Supreme Court reporter as the striking down of statutes and regulations. Just the usual sophistry there. But this article adds a twist. It would have us believe that when Chief Justice Roberts – during his confirmation hearing last year – used an umpire analogy to describe the proper role of a judge, he had the Times's definition of activism in mind. Of course, that is not the definition that Roberts intended nor followed during his first term on the Court. The article's conclusion: Roberts's first term decisions reveal that he is no umpire.
UPDATE: For additional thoughts on this article, see the posts by Matthew Franck and Ed Whelan over at Bench Memos.
This is a Part of the Media's Strategy
by EzOnTheEyez
The media is launching a concerted effort to redefine "activism" as anytime a statute or court precedence is struck down instead of anytime law in Contravention to the constitution, or judicial rulings in contravention to established laws and statutes are upheld or imposed.
Not such a bad call
by John Constantine
Hmm, so the voters of Oregon decide by referendum they want assisted suicide to be legal. Maybe that's a good idea, maybe not, but that's how they voted. Then an unelected federal official comes along (US Attorney General) and loftily declares it's still illegal in Oregon, regardless of what the voters of that state think, because this AG has dreamed up a new interpretation of a drug pricing statute that supposedly prohibits it, an interpretation found nowhere on the face of the statute. Heck, the AG's power to issue a regulation to this effect isn't even in the statute. Sounds a lot like judicial activism to me or rather it would be if the courts had tried to do what Ashcroft tried to do and Ashcroft didn't have any authority to do what he did, anymore than the courts would have had.
One bad call doesn't make Roberts a bad judge, but Gonzales v. Oregon was a bad call on his part.
It's an article written by a legal simpleton. Savage displays a surprising lack of basic legal understanding in the article. Perhaps that's why he's writing for the LA Times.