2010 California Election Forum

The difference between a strict constructionalist who interprets the constitution and a liberal judicial activist is clearly seen in the judicial philosophy of Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer.

Breyer, in his book Active Liberty, wrote "Since law is connected to life, judges, in applying a test in light of its purpose, should look to consequences, including contemporary conditions, social, industrial and political of the community to be affected."

In other words, interpreting the Constitution and the framers intent is not a judge's standard. Other considerations are taken into account, based on the subject of political philosophy of the judges.

Breyer has said, "I tend to explore purpose and consequences, other-emphasis language, a more liberal tending of the text, history and tradition."

Here is how this plays out:

A Texas religious monument on display for many years without complaint was constitutional. But the display at a Kentucky courthouse that was newer and more likely to stir complaint was unconstitutional. Totally subjective.

This is really the court subjectively legislating, not interpreting, the law. Weighting the law's impact on the community is what the legislator is for, not judges. Breyer and other judicial activists became unelected, unaccountable, unpredictable dictators, instead of judges.

Or take the 1st Amendment and free speech. Breyer voted to uphold the McCain-Feingold-Cochran Campaign Reform Bill that tramples free speech.

His justification was purely political and subjective speculation, "We have to do something to make that playing field a little more level in terms of money."

In other words, it's okay to suppress free speech and trample the 1st Amendment to ensure all speech is equally protected. This is his opinion being imposed on us, not constitutional interpretation.

This is why we need to replace judicial activists with strict constructionalists.

We have warned that out-of-control liberal judges are legislating and overriding propositions and elected officials.

Here are two new cases:

• Proposition 83, Jessica’s Law, which was passed with 70% of the vote, was stopped by an activist judge.
• The city of Escondido passed an ordinance to stop landlords from renting to those violating our immigration laws. But now an activist judge has stopped the enforcement of the law. The federal judge seemed to agree with the law's opponents and the ACLU. Once again, one individual subverts electoral and legislative decisions and imposes his own beliefs.

Our courts are out of control. That’s why we created a new website, www.Judgevoterguide.com. Please visit it for updates and information.

Come January, Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York will become the chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts.

He says he will reject any conservative President Bush nominates. His committee must approve every nominee.

With more than 50 federal judicial vacancies, President Bush has been nominating men and women who believe it is their judicial job to interpret the constitution, not legislate from the bench. According to Schumer, “There will be no more right wing judges.”

Superior Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito are considered “right wing” by the Senator because they are judicial activists.

The 9th U.S. Court of Appeals is at it again. The radical-left court now has ruled that a rescue mission is prohibited from holding voluntary chapel because it violates the First Amendment Establishment Clause.

Basically, the court is saying you can’t participate in chapel—this is a clear violation of your First Amendment rights and it tramples religious liberty.

We hope you found this article to be informative. To visit more articles and for additional information regarding the upcoming elections, please visit www.ElectionForum.org.