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.

Hat tip to The Liberty Papers .

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.

The Supreme Court recently heard a challenge to the DC handgun ban in a case that has the potential to definitively clarify the Second Amendment , which states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

There has been a long-standing debate between gun rights activists and gun control advocates as to whether this describes an individual right or whether it applies only in the context of a regulated militia. The ruling is not expected until June, but based on questioning before the Court, it appears likely that a majority of Justices will rule that the DC ban is unconstitutional.

Hat tip to Tyler Cowen .

Tyler comments on a post by Megan McCardle at the Atlantic about what the legal ramifications should be for drug companies' products that pass the FDA approval process. Megan's commentary was, in turn, prompted by a post by Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly .

Starting with Drum:

promoted by John

Rep. Eric Cantor, a frequent poster has a new website and petition called SavetheSecond.com

Don't click away yet as Cantor said: "This is bigger than politics - this is about our fundamental rights as citizens of the United States."

With the 2008 presidential and Congressional elections on the horizon, the Supreme Court agreed today to consider whether voter-identification laws unfairly keep poor people and members of minority groups from going to the polls.

Many states are either enacting, considering, or in some cases overturning voter ID laws. The justification is that requiring photo ID will reduce voting fraud; the criticism is that this imposes an unnecessary burden. The laws are generally pushed by Republicans and opposed by Democrats, and not coincidentally the groups of voters most likely to be impacted by such laws tend to vote Democrat. The SC will be deciding whether to overturn an Indiana law requiring government-issued photo ID, and my guess is that this court will find the law to be constitutional, although I suppose the fact they took the case at all when they could have just left the law in place might suggest some mixed feelings among the Justices.

Welcome to my coming-out party. No, sorry pico; it’s not that kind of ‘coming-out.’ :-)

For my inaugural front page diary, I wish to start by stating that I will try to present the type of material I find most interesting: those issues that have no clear-cut or established partisan answers. Let’s go beyond the important but often trite partisan debates we have around here and examine what it means to be an American citizen in the 21st century. What are our obligations? What are our values? What are our goals? Most significantly in regards to our mission here of inter-ideological dialogue, what are our rights in the current political climate?