Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
I can honestly say that I have seen what could be termed "judicial activism" from liberal judges and from consevrative judges. I can also say that, in my experience, a charge of "judicial activism" often means "the judge doesn't agree with me." If he rules with me, he's a great judge. If he doesn't, he's an activist. I see that a lot.
|
I think I've said it on here before, but I'm very interested in appellate advocacy. My professional "dreams" so to speak would be to brief/argue a case before the US Supreme Court and eventually become a state appellate court judge. As such, I've gone to a lot of local events to see appellate lawyers speak and hold workshops.
There were two such workshops where the same advocate was giving a presentation. At the first, she talked about how more judges were becoming "legislators from the bench," and how it was sad that the judiciary was going in such an "activist" direction. At the next session, she praised the majority in a case for being "brave" enough to overrule precedent and move the law in a new direction.
Of course, the "new direction" was one she'd argued for when she briefed and argued the case before the court in question. To me it was a perfect display of what you're describing.