According to this e-mail newsletter from the ABA Journal, more than half of all Americans in a recent poll sees a "judicial activism crisis."
I quote: "A majority of the survey respondents agreed with statements that 'judicial activism' has reached the crisis stage, and that judges who ignore voters' values should be impeached. Nearly half agreed witha congressman who said judges are 'arrogant, out-of-control and unaccountable.'"
As far as the voters' values is concerned: 28 percent strongly agreed and 28 percent somewhat agreed with a state governor statement that court opinions should be in line with voters' values, and judges who repeatedly ignore those values should be impeached.
As we all know, the judges are the reason this country has gone to hell. They constantly use international opinion to support their positions, they make up rights, they clearly ignore the written word of the law and the Consitution, and they constantly declare Unconstitutional the laws that Congress passes. We need to get rid of these people who don't rule the way we want them to.
Or, perhaps there's a reason why we have judges. Perhaps the judge's job ISN'T to rule according to the values of the voters, but rather to rule according to the rule of law. Isn't there a reason why we appoint judges as opposed to having public trials? Isn't Congress required to spell out clearly what they intend the laws to mean? When Congress is unclear on something, such as what an "exchange" is for income tax purposes, should the judge stop the trial, wait for Congress to convene and hope that they clarify the situation? Could it possibly be that judges, while imperfect, and while accepting some bad eggs, do a pretty good job at what they do? Is "judicial activism" anything more than a smoke screen designed to throw us off the trail of Congressional accountability?
I commented specifically on the point that judges should rule according to voters' values. Does this mean that as the values of the community change, the rulings must also change, whether the law has or not? Does the judge need to go and poll the public to find out what they are supposed to say? Or do they need to rule according to the Constitution, which supposedly is the foundation of our society, current value system notwithstanding? In that vein, I agree with what Professor Charles G. Geyh says: "[The idea that judges should] somehow follow the voters' views really reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what judges are supposed to do. They should only be criticized when they ignore the law and start infusing their own values into the law regardless of the law."
But then, we are in the era of the coffeehouse genius, the YODA (Young, Opinionated, Directionless Artiste), who knows the problems with everything and how to solve it all, but lacking the actual motivation to actually get up and do anything. And thus they get their opinions by what they hear on the news and in the papers, and on the net. Perhaps the statistics in these polls fall along Disraeli's definition of lies...