judicial activism

Well, here we go again. With Neil Gorsuch as the current Supreme Court nominee, once more we hear praises of "originalism
Calls for judges to be constrained by the Constitution's original meaning are entirely proper--and important.
It is easy to be cynical about what has become an ugly partisan fight over Judge Garland's nomination. But the confirmation process can serve a valuable educational function.
If ever there was reason to end judicial selection by election, one need look no further than Kansas. The G.O.P. is seeking to replace four supreme court justices because it is unhappy with their rulings.
Will liberals and conservatives change their views about the role of the courts in enforcing the Constitution if a new liberal majority emerges on the Supreme Court?
Defending the notion that the Constitution -- all of it -- has a fixed, determinable meaning would take more than a brief essay. My ambitions here are modest -- to offer a sketch of why judges whose authority is derived from the Constitution cannot perform their duty unless they share Scalia's conviction that, "Words have meaning. And that meaning doesn't change."
The adulation by admirers of Justice Antonin Scalia over his alleged role as a conservative constitutional steward who applied neutral, nonpartisan principles, is pure myth. While promoted by conservative ideologues who fawn over Justice Scalia's flamboyant jurisprudence, holding him up as an icon for conservative principles, is simply hard to take.
Senator Rand Paul has departed from the Republican presidential race--but not before offering a much-needed challenge to conservative orthodoxy concerning the Constitution and the proper role of the courts in enforcing it.
President Obama recently highlighted the need for criminal justice reform which complements the bipartisan effort to reform our criminal justice system. However, reforming only the criminal justice system falls short of what is needed.
By now, you may have heard about the lesbian couple in Oregon who were politely turned down when they asked a bakery owned by a Christian couple to make them a wedding cake.
Clerks have granted marriage licenses to convicted murderers while still in prison despite the Commandment that thou shall not commit murder, but some clerks have decided to draw the line at same-sex marriage licenses -- apparently a more serious offense to their religious principles.
Answer: Its own members. For years I have been railing against conservatives for eroding confidence in our judicial system by the constant litany of charging judges with being "activists," "following their own agenda," "legislating from the bench," "thwarting the will of the majority" and being "soft on crime."

They're catnip for commentators -- two dynasts announcing within two days. Except the differences far exceed the parallels -- one's a yellow-pad wonk related to a popular ex-POTUS who leads with 60 percent in Democratic polls. The other is a "Jar of Mayo" with 100 percent recognition yet only 10 percent in GOP polls. Lowry and Katrina debate why.

It's one of the Supreme Court's most famous, controversial and consequential decisions. On June 7, 1965, the Court in Griswold v. Connecticut struck down legislation prohibiting the use of contraceptives, relying in part upon a "right of privacy" that appears nowhere in the text of the Constitution.
Last week, Slate writer Mark Joseph Stern advanced an alarming proposal with apparent seriousness: The Supreme Court should be abolished, or, at the very least, ignored.
Every one of us is entitled to an honest, reasoned explanation when the government requires us to obey a law that we might not agree with, to ensure that that law preserves our liberty rather than depriving us of it. Three generations of judicial abdication are enough.
In this post, I will argue that Holloway's approach to judicial review is informed by an understanding of rights that is alien to that of the Framers and ignores the express language of the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. In a subsequent post, I will trace the tragic consequences of that approach.
Lochner is deeply rooted in an American legal tradition that protects individual rights from overbearing majorities and entrenched special interests, and the decision showcases what courts can and must do to keep the political branches in check.
The SCOTUS confirmation process has been dominated by extended, fruitless discussions of the supposed scourge of "judicial activism." At a time when the government is claiming unprecedented authority over our lives, we should shift the focus to the judiciary's critical role in protecting our constitutional rights.