Activist judges

[EOD3]

Has anyone at CGF given any thought to publishing a list of activist judges? I would like to know which judges rule by personal opinion rather than the law and/or Constitution. Supporting the right judges, chatting with friends and relatives or signage in the yard or whatever could go a long way toward government "by the people".

IMHO: Most judges are elected based on the order of the candidates on the ballot, not their record, political affiliation, or views on personal liberty.

[510dat]

It depends entirely on your point of view, and it cuts both ways; there are plenty of people who think that Heller and McDonald are purely the result of activist judges.

[paul0660]

Shorter list would be those who don't stick their opinion in. Most of these judges are appointed by Governors and Presidents who are expressly political, and promote to judgeship people who are of like mind.

[Gray Peterson]

CGF should not do any such thing. They have to have cases heard potentially in front of these judges, too.

[BluNorthern]

It depends entirely on your point of view, and it cuts both ways; there are plenty of people who think that Heller and McDonald are purely the result of activist judges.

Not to mention the Supreme Court's ruling where the court's conservative members said corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals and, for that reason, the government may not stop corporations from spending to help their favored candidates. Where were the cries of "Activist Judges" and "Where's the outrage?" from Hannity and others? Indeed, it all depends on what one believes, either sincerely and/or part of a bigger agenda.

[Whiskey_Sauer]

First of all, define "activist judge." Completely impractical to do so in any given situation.

Judge Bork, who would have been appointed to the Supreme Court, literally wrote the book decrying liberal judicial activism, and advocating for "strict constructionism" with regard to the Constitution, took a literal, non-interpretative view of the Second Amendment, i.e., he would have held it was a collective right to bear arms for the sake of maintaining a well-regulated militia only. It is unknown how he would have viewed the incorporation argument.

So in other words, "judicial activism," even if it could be defined or measured, predicts absolutely nothing about any given case.

[jumbopanda]

Activist Judge- A judge who makes rulings that you don't agree with.

[EOD3]

Did you notice the LAW AND/OR CONSTITUTION part of my post? Obviously, some of the members here can't separate their personal opinion from PLAIN ENGLISH.

If the "lawyers", who are familiar with these judges don't dare speak the truth without fear of retribution from certain judges, those judges need to GO AWAY!

[Glock22Fan]

took a literal, non-interpretative view of the Second Amendment, i.e., he would have held it was a collective right to bear arms for the sake of maintaining a well-regulated militia only.

Then he doesn't know how to parse English, historical or present.

"Well-read academics, being necessary for the proper teaching of English, the public shall have the right to own and read books without infringement" does not mean that only English teachers may own and read books.

[Whiskey_Sauer]

Then he doesn't know how to parse English, historical or present.

Well, the point is, you could take the most "anti-judicial-activist" judge alive, and it doesn't mean you're going to get the result you wanted.

[bwiese]

1. Opportunity may exist for subject-specific classification of judges as anti-gun, etc. The group
making such claims should be entirely & identifiably separate from groups bringing up cases.

2. No smart lawyer rationally wants to attack/irritate a judge that'll be likely hearing his cases.

3. It's hard to unseat a judge even if that judge is reversed all the time in appeals. You have to show
gross misconduct, total idiocy (and our definition vs. the legal definition would differ significantly), etc.
to take down a judge.

4. Some/many judges esp in CA will probably be happy being labelled as antigun so quite a bit of this
work can be, at best, moot.

5. The appeals process works.

[Nose Nuggets]

No Judge rules by the Constitution anymore, they almost always rule based on precedent.

[duldej]

I've wanted to single-out a judge before because I was getting too many jaywalking tickets and have him answer for it, but it did not work. a legal consultant of the county wrote me a 2 page letter stating that the subpoena that I issued as attorney of record (I'm not an lawyer) was going to be dishonored.

I bet though, that if you were to launch a private investigation on just one judge, you could find some of what you want. probably it's too expensive to do that.

the bottom line, though, is that what did he do to you? or what do you stand to benefit from such an investigation? and if you're investigating a judge that you don't like you might shoot yourself in the foot, as others have mentioned if it happens that you've got to appear before him. you would come across, probably, like the one that's likely in contempt of court.

I second the appeals process that bwiese mentioned (above) because if there's a bad opinion, then it's already set in stone that the appeals judge hears just such a thing, but again that's in the case when there's a case already.

I'll have to say no guts no glory, and that if you want a case heard, you'll have to petition it yourself. an appeals hearing is a moot point, though, because you can't appeal a case that was never heard.

some posters recommended that maybe it is a personal thing, and I will sidle with them.

you personally want $10 thousand bucks from the state of california because its judges are corrupt in general and your private investigation yielded plenty of incriminating information. everything from fraud to general negligence.

not only judge A is always corrupt, but The Sheriff is his best friend and Judge B even is ruling the exact same ways as judge A.

you will have personally petitioned the courts to hear your personal case so in principle you get what you want, but not until you personally do something yourself about it.

The last thing you want, though, and as a precautionary measure, is to have your case heard where you're the defendant in a criminal case because there you stand to gain nothing.

I think it's a matter for research or else hiring a private investigator to do the research.

[hoffmang]

CGF should not do any such thing. They have to have cases heard potentially in front of these judges, too.

This.

However as Bill says above, there are some other ways that we can address this issue as it relates to state court judges as a new judge is by right of the accused in CA state court.

-Gene

[Mikeb]

OK How should I vote for judges? I try to be informed but when it comes to judges they are just names on the ballot, pick two...
thanks
Mike