Where exactly is this "leftist bias" conservatives complain about in the judiciary?

[Goofball]

I have heard conservatives complain about the left-leaning, activist judges in the U.S. so often, that I had just assumed that the majority of Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Democrats. But I just went to the Supreme Court website, and found the following info:

W.H. Rehnquist - Appointed by Nixon
J.P. Stevens - Appointed by Ford
S.D. O'Connor - Appointed by Reagan
A. Scalia - Appointed by Reagan
A. Kennedy - Appointed by Reagan
D.H. Souter - Appointed by Bush
C. Thomas - Appointed by Bush
R. Ginsburg - Appointed by Clinton
S. Breyer - Appointed by Clinton

Out of a total of 9 Supreme Court Justices, 7 are Republican appointees. So, where are all of these raving leftist judges you righties are whining about?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Just because they were appointed by a republican doesn't mean they will always have a conservative view. Just look at the recent minor death penalty case where they voted, 5-4 that the death penalty for minors is unconstitutional. A little over a decade ago, the court had ruled on that same issue and decided that executing minors was not unconstitutional. In the recent decision, A. Kennedy apperently changed his mind-or, according to him, the meaning of the constitution changed in the 10 years in between! Of course, they didn't cite the constitution so much as foreign laws! (because, of course, the constitution doesn't ban minor death penalties.)

The problem we conservatives have is with activist judges: those who rule based not on what the constitution says, but what they think is right. Those who, for example, decide that a woman has a 'right' to abortion, due to the 'right' of privacy, which is not in the constitution. Or that there's a 'seperation of church and state' in the constitution. Or that flag burning is protected under 'free expression'. Heck, they'd probably overturn laws against supporting the enemy during wars if the issue ever came up. Or that, since criminals have the right to an attorney, the state must provide one. Or judges who say, "You do what you think is right, and wait for the law to catch up."

In essence, we hate 5 people deciding what is right for our country and totally ignoring what they are supposed to be guided by-the constitution.

Crazed Rabbit

[Proletariat]

Wonderfully put. You can't politicize the Judiciary. It needs to be a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

If you let the Constitution be reinterpreted by every idiotic movement that comes down the pipe, you lose a major part of what is truly unique in US democracy.

[PanzerJaeger]

The supreme court is not the only judiciary in the country Goofball.

[Adrian II]

A little over a decade ago, the court had ruled on that same issue and decided that executing minors was not unconstitutional. In the recent decision, A. Kennedy apperently changed his mind-or, according to him, the meaning of the constitution changed in the 10 years in between! Of course, they didn't cite the constitution so much as foreign laws! (because, of course, the constitution doesn't ban minor death penalties.)

I may be a foreigner, but I can read Supreme Court decisions and Roper v. Simmons is clearly based on Constitutional grounds, citing a change of heart in the majority of State Supreme Courts over the past ten years regarding execution of minors and mentally retarded persons:

(a) The Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments” must be interpreted according to its text, by considering history, tradition, and precedent, and with due regard for its purpose and function in the constitutional design. To implement this framework this Court has established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be “cruel and unusual.”
[...]
Three Terms ago in Atkins, the Court held that standards of decency had evolved since Penry and now demonstrated that the execution of the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual punishment. The Atkins Court noted that objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in pertinent legislative enactments and state practice, demonstrated that such executions had become so truly unusual that it was fair to say that a national consensus has developed against them.
Etcetera...

Oh, and go Anthony Kennedy!

[JimBob]

due to the 'right' of privacy, which is not in the constitution

The words 'right to privacy' are not in the constitution because in the late 1700's the word 'privacy' was a euphimism for going to the latrine. I don't think our founders saw an explicit right to take a dump as needed.

Also have you heard of this thing called the 9th amendment? It states that

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

meaning that rights not listed we still have because one argument against the Constitution was a lack of a Bill of Rights, and one of the problems with the Bill of Rights was the fear that we have too many right to list, so listing rights would make people believe that those not listed we did not have, therefore the 9th amendment.

And laws limiting free speech can be passed only if they protect national intrest (no spilling government secrets say), burning a flag does not harm those intrests, there are no laws that force you to love America.

May I ask why you use quotes around free expression like it was some loney idea?

[Tribesman]

So, where are all of these raving leftist judges you righties are whining about?
You miss the point Goof , if they are not rabid baying for blood and frothing at the mouth right wing exreemists then they must be leftist liberal girly men .

[Crazed Rabbit]

May I ask why you use quotes around free expression like it was some loney idea?

Because it is used to defend people who burn the symbol of our country. Now, that seems awfully close to treason to me...

To implement this framework this Court has established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society”

This is exactly what I'm talking about. They decide to do whatever the heck they want, and pretend that it's all hunky-dory since 'the constitution is an evolving document' and other such drivel they make up. The courts are supposed to decide based on the laws, not make laws. And just where in the constitution might one find anything about the constitution's meaning changig over time? It's a bunch of BS the activist judges made up to give the illusion of lawfullness to their dictatorship.

Three Terms ago in Atkins, the Court held that standards of decency had evolved since Penry and now demonstrated that the execution of the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual punishment. The Atkins Court noted that objective indicia of society’s standards, as expressed in pertinent legislative enactments and state practice, demonstrated that such executions had become so truly unusual that it was fair to say that a national consensus has developed against them.
Etcetera...

As crazy as it seems, the point of judges in this coutry is to apply the law, in the case of the S.C., to apply the constitution. It is NOT to say that the constitution chages over time, and then decide whatever they think is best.

If state legislatures had been banning executions of minors, that is no reason for the S.C. to start legislating. It is the job of the legislatures to-surprise!-legislate, not for the SC to dictate whatever it thinks. And a 'ational consensus' is totally unimportant, what is important is the constitution, not what the SC declares the people feel.

meaning that rights not listed we still have because one argument against the Constitution was a lack of a Bill of Rights, and one of the problems with the Bill of Rights was the fear that we have too many right to list, so listing rights would make people believe that those not listed we did not have, therefore the 9th amendment.

Yes, but what 'right' is there in the constitution for having an abortion? The SC just decided that woman should be able to have abortions on demand, and so made up some BS about a 'right' to a abortion. How is a ban on abortions unconstitutional?

Oh, and go Anthony Kennedy!

Yes, we had better not execute criminals if they are under a certain age, no matter how heinious their crime is. But if an innocent child is drastically ill...

Crazed Rabbit

[Adrian II]

They decide to do whatever the heck they want, and pretend that it's all hunky-dory since 'the constitution is an evolving document' and other such drivel they make up.

Of course it is, the use and meaning of every legal instrument or founding text change over time. I tend of think of the Founding Fathers as men who indeed believed in social progress and a 'maturing' society, and who introduced a clause against cruel and unusual punishment because they did not want their new country to copy the barbarous punishments of early modern Europe, but to be a shining beacon for humanity. You just sound like an American Taliban with your 'litteralist' interpretation of the document.

[PanzerJaeger]

Crazed Rabbit stated things quite clearly.

The Supreme Court's job is not to make law but to uphold it.