Conservatives and the Federal Courts

Ever notice that whenever a federal court renders a decision conservatives do not like they angrily denounce it as "judicial activism"? It seems to me that conservatives have set up a non-falsifiable line of critique: any decision in opposition to conservative policy objectives must therefore be "judicial activism" and therefore, illegitimate. Hence, the conservatives squawking about the 9th Circuit's decision today to postpone the California recall as "judicial activism" are the same people who cheered on the Supreme Court in 2000 when it invalidated the Florida recount and appointed the US President.

Judges' Free Trips Go Unreported
U.S. Jurists Say They Forgot To Comply With Ethics Law
advertisement






By Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 30, 2000; Page A01


Federal judges took more than a dozen expense-paid trips to seminars put on by conservative groups but failed to disclose the resort trips on their annual financial reports, as required by federal ethics laws, documents and interviews show.

The excursions, some of which lasted two weeks and cost thousands of dollars, were devoted to discussions of economics and the environment. But the privately financed sessions also offered judges time for golf and horseback riding at the island resort and historic Western retreats where they were held.

The judicial seminars have become controversial since The Washington Post reported on them two years ago. Some public interest groups have called for judges to turn down the trips, complaining that the sponsors accept funding from corporate foundations and conservative organizations that have an interest in federal litigation.

The judges who didn't report the trips said they weren't trying to hide them, they simply forgot to list the excursions when filling out their annual reports.

"It just slipped through," said Judge Michael Boudin of the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. He failed to report that he took a two-week trip to Hilton Head Island, S.C., sponsored by the Law & Economics Center.

District Judge John S. Rhoades of San Diego attended two Law & Economics Center seminars but disclosed neither. "I goofed," he admitted. But the judge said he had no qualms about accepting such gifts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A22996-2000Jun29¬Found=true

The whole reason they continue to slam the 9th is because they want to break it up and minimize it's impact. See my posts here- make sure to read the next six or seven posts

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=115241#115374

I believe it was on NBC ... some conservative lawyer was complaining about the decision. I'm paraphrasing here, but he said it was travesty that Federal Judges would interfere in a state's election.
:nopity: The hypocrisy of these people is absolutely astounding!

I yelled at the television: "Stop whining and get over it! Payback's a bitch, isn't it?" :evilgrin:

"Judicial activism" is simply a decision they don't like.