Both parties Activist judge using?

Joe, I have a question for you. How is finding that piece in the health reform unconstitutional, being an activist judge? Isnt his job to decide what is constitutional and what isnt? How would you have handled that differently? What in his decision made you decide it was an activist decision?

The simple fact is, "activist judges legislating from the bench" aren't acceptable - that is, unless they're on your side! I don't mean "your" side personally, by the way...lol! The problem is, all judges have the potential of being "activists". Some people think all judges and justices should be elected, like our county and state judges are while other think they should all be appointed. I think there are arguments for and against both. Let's face it, our courts aren't supposed to be political but we all know they are and I don't see how it can be avoided. If judges are elected, obviously they're going to be beholden to their donors and rich and powerful supporters; on the other side of the coin, if they're appointed, they're going to owe the person and the party that appointed them. I can't think of any other alternatives, can you? Annie

Activism means changing the laws regardless of the constitution. An example would be INVENTING a right to abortion or giving special rights to minorities thus violating the equal protection clause. Simply looking at the constitution and seeing that something is unconstitutional is NOT activism.