Statistics show that conservative judges are more prone to legislate from the bench

Link?

 

Uh oh. Use of facts are clearly prohibited by ultra-conservatives. Let's all wait for the one-liners either asking for more facts, deriding your source, laughing at liberals, or just overall insults that will surely come.

 

It is basic board etiquette to provide a link or source for your "facts".

 

I didn't post anything related to your post.

 

You posted an out of left field tirade about facts and sources right after I asked for a link to the source of his statistics. Alright...

 

really? I said "deriding the source", not anything about asking for a link. I said "asking for more facts" not anything about asking for a link. So please read and then re-read posts before responding.

 

Since I asked for a link which would provide the source, thus providing the legitimacy of the data, and you then spoke of deriding the source, it appears you did post something related. Maybe if I re-read the sequence of posts it'll come out differently but I doubt it. Perhaps you could recommend an English tutor so I can decipher your myriad of insightful posts a little more effectively.

 

I think MartianMan wasn't addressing you, CometsWin. You were ASKING for a source, not deriding it. MartianMan was anticipating attacks on the article itself and not your request for a link.

Link requests are very common here. I have rarely seen people get flamed for asking for one.

You were right to request a link, of course. The article makes a bold claim and of course a link is required.

 

Legally, the phrase "legislating from the bench" is about as stupid and meaningless a phrase as "judicial activism", though it's a handy right wing code word.

 

I don't actually want to get into a debate about this other than to say I sense these stats are very misleading. It is more anecdotal than statistical. We're talking about the actions of a small handful of judges, over a finite amount of time. I would suspect the political landscape had a greater effect on these numbers than the activism of the judges in question. To say these are statistics that indicate some tendency among conservative judges seems to me to be simple lying (no offense).

 

Except when it reflects negatively on conservative judges....then it's a handy left wing code word .

 

Can you elaborate? I remember a judge in Texas basically taking control of the prison system (I believe the issue was overcrowding) and straight up dictating policy. That doesn't seem to be consistent with what judges are supposed to do, but rather what the legislatures are supposed to do. Since you're a lawyer I'd be interested in hearing more specifically what you mean.

 

frnakly I'm surprised that more right-wing conservatives aren't judges. I mean, they're so good at judging other people, plus their whole mantra is "do as I say, not as I do". Perfect for judging

 

How is that example "legislating from the bench"? There is nothing legislative about the example you described. If anything administering prisons is an executive function. I'm not that familiar with the actual rulings, but I don't see any "legislative" fucntion being used in finding that the Texas prison system conditions were so decrepit and inhumane as to violate constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

Really, I should be asking you what "legislating from the bench" means. I actually don't know what it means. We didn't learn about it in law school. I would ask you what "judicial activism" means, but I already know the answer - it's when judges make decisions that republicans don't like.

 

Wow...way to make a discriminatory statement about an entire group of people.

 

Well, since you're the one saying its a meaningless term one would think you'd have some insight. Alas, I should have known better considering the source.

 

So you're already starting with the insults Hayes? That sucks, I was being relatively civil to you and I addressed your concerns as best I could.

Don't you understand why I am unable to define a meaningless term? Of course I can't define it! That's what I'm saying: it doesn't mean anything - that's the point, and it's not exactly subtle. I don't think you can formulate a workable definition either, but I invite you to try.

You can make that phrase mean just about anything, just like "judicial activism" - which is why you can come up with a study (such as the one that is the topic of this thread) that says that conservative judges "legislate from the bench" even though the catchphrase happens to be a Republican invention.

Judges both republican and democrat appointed or elected alike decide cases, based on their interpretation of the law, for the most part. That's what the judge did in the Ruiz texas prison cases - he decided that the texas prison system was operating in violation of the 8th amendment. I don't call that legislating from the bench. I call that a judge, doing the job he/she is paid to do.

Now one can argue that any decision that protects people's rights is "legislating from the bench", (like Brown v. Board of Education), just like you can argue that any decision that denies people's rights (Dred Scott) is the same thing - Again, for the last time, what's the point of the phrase at all? It has no technical legal significance that I'm aware of. It's not in Black's Law Dictionary.

But if you want to answer with another insult, go ahead. Just give me one of your classic "Dick" one-worders.

 

New book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0385513496/103-6781019-7134265?v=glance