The Left is complaining about judicial activism?

The Left is complaining about judicial activism?

What is an “activist” judge? Wikipedia defines it as “Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy holding that courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of their decisions. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The term usually implies that judges make rulings based on their own views rather than on precedent.” The president is always complaining about “activist judges.” Trump has said “We cannot allow a handful of communist radical-left judges to obstruct the enforcement of our laws and assume the duties that belong solely to the president of the United States.” Of course, Trump is trying to redefine “the duties that belong solely to the president.”

Both democratic and republican presidents have accused the courts of exceeding their constitutional role. “Judicial activism largely exists in the eye of the beholder,” says Barry Friedman, a law professor at New York University. “One person’s activism is another’s sound decision-making.” This was in full view when a judge in Virginia blocked the certification of the ballot measure that would have gerrymandered the state’s congressional map, changing it from 6 democrats and 5 republicans to 10 democrats and only one republican. The measure passed narrowly with only 51.8 percent of the vote. Tazewell County Circuit Court Judge Jack Hurley blocked the certification. Hurley cited procedural failures in how the legislature advanced the amendment and “misleading” ballot language that he said improperly influenced voters. Virginia’s attorney general Jay Jones, a democrat, said an appeal was imminent saying “Virginia voters have spoken, and an activist judge (my emphasis) should not have veto power over the People’s vote. We look forward to defending the outcome of last night’s election in court.” Now when was the last time we heard a democrat accuse a judge of activism?

In 2020 Virginia voters approved a constitutional amendment removing redistricting power from the Legislature and placing it in a bipartisan commission precisely to try and take partisanship out of the process. The ballot language sought to change this. But what was the “misleading” ballot language? Here it is: “Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia’s standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?” Hell, I would have voted “yes”. Who wouldn’t want to “restore fairness”? I really wonder if most voters knew what they were voting for – or against? How about a change in the ballot language to “Do you want to get rid of all the pro-kings republican congressmen (who love Trump) and to replace them with freedom loving democrats (who hate Trump)”?