Judicial activism is sadly a problem that our country has faced in the past and even more sadly will continue to face. When you have judges legislative from the bench, you might as well ball up the Constitution and throw it away. This is not how our Founding Fathers designed our government. Let's review: Judges interpret the law, Legislators make the law. However, what we find these days, is judges rule on emotion and what is "right" and "moral" rather than what the law says. While I commend these judges for having "morals," not many now-a-days do; that is NOT your job. Your job is to look at what the existing laws say and interpret them. Let's look at some examples.

First item up for business, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. The fact that the Supreme Court declared segregation "unconstitutional," itself was unconstitutional! Now before you start saying, "He is a hick from Alabama who is saying the decision in Brown v BOE is unconstitutional, he must be in the Klan!" hear me out. The main claim that the court tried to use was the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. They said this clause made it legally wrong for schools to be segregated. Let's look at this clause, " ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This clause merely states, that all laws will be applied fairly. In other words, any law that applies to blacks also applies to whites, and vice versa. So, where in the Constitution, its amendments, or legislative acts before the time this decision was rendered does it say segregation is against the law? It doesn't, therefore that decision is unconstitutional, thus deemed judiciary activism.

Yes, I know racism and segregation is a touchy subject that most avoid because they do not want to be called a racist or a bigot. However, you call me any names you want, I am looking at the facts! The aim that we have lost sight of is that judges are not supposed to make decisions based on emotion, but how they interpret the law. Chief Justice Earl Warren showed this flaw in his opinion by saying, "[M]y instincts and feelings lead me to say that, in these cases we should abolish the practice of segregation the public schools-- but in a tolerant way." Feelings should have nothing to do with it!

Now, Obama wants another Supreme Court justice who is empathetic? Screw empathetic, know and interpret the law! A judge should not be empathetic! They should only be looking at the law. Today, Obama names his nominee for the Supreme Court to replace Souter. Really, Sonia Sotomayor? The one who said to a group of Duke Law students that "the court of appeals is where law is MADE." Good Lord! How much more blatant does it have to be that she is an activist judge. Surely, he couldv'e found someone better! Oh wait, she will be the first Hispanic-female on the court! Well hell, the people would have voted her in if they could simply to make history, not based on policy or past actions. Oh wait, they have already done that!

But what do I know, I am just a conservative college mind.