I posted this to get to the heart of the matter on Sotomayor and the lively discussion regarding her nomination.

I think it would behoove all of us to properly define what exactly an "activist judge" is.  I would define an activist judge as one who does not follow the law and legal precedent when making a legal determination.  Rather, such a judge would substitute what they think the law should be rather than what it is.  However, there is a caveat. 

A judge on the Supreme Court need not follow precedent, as bad precedent needs to be overturned.  A district court or appeals court judge does need to follow any precedent, regardless of how wrong that precedent is.  IIRC, Gonzalez v. Carhart was a model for how judges should act: district and appeals courts struck down the law banning partial birth abortion based on precedent and the law.  The Supreme Court then changed the precedent.

Please offer up your own definitions of an activist judge and whether or not you'd agree that courts inferior to the Supreme Court are beholden to bad precedent.

Ender's video which featured the former Clinton supporter indirectly reminded me of the topic of judicial appointments and its effect on voters.

A common argument for McCain that has been used to shore up his support among the base is that he will appoint strict constructionist judges in the mold of Antonin Scalia while Obama will try to pack the court with far left ideologues. That, in and of itself, is a good enough reason to pull the lever for McCain, regardless of what views he may have on other issues. Indeed, a McCain presidency could finally be what overturns Roe v. Wade. Lets take a moment to dissect these arguments.

How would you improve and standardize our criminal justice system to minimize the possibility of wrongful convictions? Some possibilities and background below the fold.

This is very unfair and plain wrong.

For all the talk of "freedom" that the Paulbots claim to believe in, they sure as heck have been silent on the horrible FISA bill we're fighting to fix in the Senate right now. Same for Ron Paul. Why the silence? And the CATO people and the libertarian publications like Reason, where are they?

Most people who regularly post here know my basic political temperament. At the core, I'm essentially a progressive/socialist with a few odd libertarian and federalist streaks. What puts me solidly in the libertarian camp on federal issues is my strict constructionist/originalist view of the Constitution. For instance, I really like the idea of social security, Medicare, the welfare state, etc., but in my view the Constitution authorizes no branch of government to create these programs. The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise.

This Video would be a great way to spend about 45 minutes this weekend. Great stuff. It's an Interview with Thomas Woods about his new book, 33 Questions about American History .

The video is embedded below the fold.

Once through discussing the book, the later parts of the interview go through recent American History and weave together an fascinating take on our current climate.

It's a not libertarian rant but rather a look at history through an un-typical lens of analysis that looks many captivating topics that Dems, Repubs and Independents alike will enjoy (I think).

The Duke rape case has essentially fallen apart and the prosecutor is facing multiple ethics complaints and may be disbarred. The DNA evidence does not appear to confirm the accuser's initial story. The Duke case struck a chord with conservative bloggers from the beginning, and many conservative blogs have devoted significant time and resources to coverage and investigation. While the concern and interest is certainly appreciated, it's hard not to wonder where this passion for correcting legal injustices has been lurking all this time. As libertarian Radley Balko put it :

I've mentioned a number of times in comments online that the true measure of George W. Bush's failure/success as a president can't be decided until after he's long gone, but that it would likely stand or fall on future generations' views of Executive power. If we inherit a country whose President is consistently more independent of Congress, Bush's administration will be considered a key step in that development, for better or (more likely) worse.

I may have exaggerated that point in the past, since the Iraq-Katrina-Corruption trinity may be too much for any President to bounce back from, no matter how many generations hence. Then again, Nixon's numbers are already up, since conservatives have tried to focus on the positives, particularly Nixon's active engagement with China. I don't see a similar silver lining in the Bush presidency, but given his behavior in the past few weeks, I think my prediction of executive power being the defining element may turn out too true for my own comfort.