Jack Roberts wrote to the Victoria Taft blog today about my rant pertaining to M 37 and judicial activism in Oregon. See the previous post here.
Jack wrote: Victoria, your history is a little rusty. The courts overturned a measure setting campaign contribution limits passed in 1994 by a margin of 851,014 to 324,224. They also overturned Measure 62, a hodgepodee of campaign rules put together by public employee unions that passed in 1998 by 721,448 to 347,112.
Both those measures could fairly be characterized as initatives supported by the left, yet the court threw them out. I'm not defending the decade-long record of judicial activism by the Oregon Supreme Court, but I think we should be careful about characterizing this as a simple left-right split.
I also think the worst thing we can do is start recalling judges whose decisions we disagree with. I agree with those who believe recall should be limited to true corruption and malfeasance, not policy disagreements.Judicial elections are another thing. There we as voters have the right to choose judges whose reasoning and values we respect.
5 comments:
Let us all remember this 'bout Jack Roberts;
Roberts signed a letter with Dr. No, aka John Kizhaber, opposing the Measure 8 spending limit several years ago.
Roberts blunder cost him the Republican nomination for Gov.
Roberts should have kept his Pen dry then and his Blog piece here silent.
Jack, you just don't know when to keep quiet.
No support here for Roberts 4 Supreme, sorry.
I believe the best thing we can do is begin to recall these activist judges, whose decisions to throw out any political initiative they disagree with is patently transparent. We have had plenty of years to see how it works.
Consider: Oregon is regarded by the Left as one of the most progressive states. Yet this is the same state where its largest city has regularly held votes that rejected light rail, only to be reversed by its leftwing pols.
On initiatives, most originating from the center-right, despite passage, they are regularly rejected by an entrenched and corrupt Oregon Judiciary.
It seesm the only thing courts in Oregon agree with is bringing in the State to off oneself.
How 'enlightening.'
Jack Roberts is right -- we shouldn't seek to recall judges just because we don't like how they ruled on a constitutional matter. That never wins the argument regarding the issue.
Bob T
CT said:
"I believe the best thing we can do is begin to recall these activist judges, whose decisions to throw out any political initiative they disagree with is patently transparent."
A hypothetical question:
What if the roles were reversed, and the "conservative" judges were "overriding" initiatives from the left? Would this also be "activism" from the bench, or would it be "patriotism" as folks like Sean Hannity would have you believe?
Flip the circumstances around, and for some, all the terminology changes, despite the parity of the situation. Hypothetically, at least.
On a slightly different topic, I know the phrase "originalist" gets thrown around quite a bit these days.
For a moment, consider the second amendment, regarding the popular conservative "right to bear arms" clause.
The actual text of the amendment reads:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I'm not arguing here about my feelings on gun control or anything like that, just to make that clear, but in terms of the original text an "originalist" would (or should, at least) argue that the average gun owner in America is *not* part of "a well regulated militia". More likely, he or she is just a person who enjoys collecting guns or hunting or wishes to feel "protected" within his or her own home, none of which are compelling in terms of "being necessary to the security of a free state."
Any of this is a can of worms, I think, but to wish that "activist" judges (who may not share your opinion but are not necessarily abusing laws) would be removed might be like the monkey's paw. Sometimes, you have to be careful of what you ask for.
Post a Comment