During the past decades, Republican conservatives have created a myth that judges can be divided between “liberal activists” versus “conservative original intentionists.” According to this division, a judge who supports equal rights for women or seeks to limit the power of government to abridge individual rights, is, by definition, an “activist.” A judge who claims the president has unlimited rights to abuse individual liberties is, by definition, reading the Constitution in a manner that would view the world in the eyes of those who wrote it. Can anyone who has studied the writing of the Constitution believe Alexander Hamilton or John Madison would support the concept an American president could imprison hundreds of men captured in battle, lock them up without due process procedures, and refuse to provide them a trial in which they could confront accusers? Huh!!
Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas are “activists” in defense of the rights of business and wealthy people. They are “activists” who will deny rights to workers to organize into unions or deny the right of women to have equal rights with men. There is no such thing as “original intent of the Constitution.” It is two hundred years after the document has been written, and each decision by members of the Court is based on an “interpretation” of what those who wrote it meant. For example, it is extremely doubtful the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was to protect the right of those with a weapon to enter a church or a school or business establishment with it. To believe that was the intent is to take an “activist” approach.
Reality is regardless of who President Obama appointed, Rush and Lou Dobbs and other conservative commentators would have yelled “activist.” An “activist” to them is anyone who disagrees with their viewpoints. An “original intent” person is one who agrees with them. Enough of the foolishness,