JUDGE MADE LAW NEWS & VIEWS
Click headline for full story

January 2007 Will Activist Judges Just Please Come the Heck out of Their Gay Closets? Dave Muskera, M.A. 01-28-08 -- "Activist Judges". The sound or sight of this phrase sets my teeth on edge. What the hell does it mean? What is its opposite!? An in-activist judge? A judge asleep on the bench? Of course, anyone who reads or is otherwise exposed to the mainstream media has heard this phrase used over and over as if it had some real substantial meaning. Media pundents and others with an agenda (and most often of a single political persuasion) beat the activist judge drum every time a judge (from state levels all the way up to the US Supreme Court) makes a decision with which they disagree. But surely, anything said so often should convey something of substance. Not just disagreement. Right? Well, I guess it does in some ways - though there are those who argue that the actual measure of its substance is more akin to the substantialness of the air in a hot air balloon. And you might also note that the term is almost always used in a pejorative sense. It is not typically a compliment. December 2007 Judge Declares the Declaration of Independence Unconstitutional      By Mario Diaz, Esq. 12-16-07 -- Okay, so the headline is a bit premature, but it's the logical precursor to the legal philosophy of liberal extremists, isn't it? . . . Ever since the Supreme Court erroneously elevated Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" metaphor to a constitutional doctrine in the 1947 landmark decision Everson v. Board of Education, a growing sort of legal fog has been setting in on our constitutional religious freedoms, ending in what can only be described as a requirement of government hostility towards religion. This is, of course, not only a far cry from what our founding fathers intended, including Thomas Jefferson - a staunch religious liberty advocate - but it is a far cry from what "We the people" intended when the Constitution was ratified. . . . The many perils of reading into the Constitution a "wall of separation between church and state" where none exists came as no surprise to many of us. Nothing good ever comes from deviating from the clear text and context of the Constitution. Many well-intentioned, smart people have argued for a "living, breathing" Constitution, changing with the times and looking for small immediate "advances," but this interpretation has only one result in the long run: tyranny. . . . In no other area of law has this proven truer than when it comes to our religious liberty. In the last sixty years, we have seen a constant attack on prayer in schools, the Ten Commandments, the sanctity of life, Christmas, Christian symbols and even religious doctrines. In many instances, our religious rights have been so inhibited that the result is exactly what the founding fathers were trying to prevent: the government dictating what the people can or can't do when it comes to religion. . . . Because of their hostility toward religion and their unveiled hatred toward anything related to God, these extreme liberal scholars are forced to ignore history, precedent and facts and are forced to decide cases from what they feel is best for the country. It is astonishing how they can go back in history and erect a temple for a distorted "wall of separation between church and state" phrase, while ignoring the text of the Constitution and the volumes of documents showing the people's real concern when enacting the First Amendment. If they want to go outside of the Constitution, you would think that they would look at the whole, and not one simple phrase, but that would be assuming that they are looking for what really happened and not for something to support what they believe is the "right thing." COLORADO    Judge who took neighbor's land 'beleaguered' Lawyer compares vacant property to lost puppy that needs care © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com Judge James Klein   12-14-07 -- A Boulder judge and his wife, who utilized a little-known "adverse possession" state law to take part of their neighbor's $1 million parcel of land, have complained that they feel "beleaguered" by the public reaction to their move. . . . The comments were made by Edith Stevens in an interview with National Public Radio, and reported this week by the Boulder Daily Camera. Stevens told NPR she and her husband, retired Judge Richard McLean are feeling "pretty beleaguered" by the fierce public opposition to the couple's case that was decided by McLean's former co-worker, Judge James Klein. . . . WND reported earlier how Stevens and McLean brought a lawsuit against the owners of a parcel of land adjacent to their ritzy Boulder home, testifying they used the land for decades for a path, and to store firewood. . . . Judge Klein then granted them ownership of 34 percent of the parcel, which had been estimated by the owners, Don and Susie Kirlin, to be worth about $1 million before the ruling. . . . The decision came despite Kirlin's testimony he paid taxes of about $16,000 a year, plus $65 per month homeowner association dues, on the land, where he's sprayed for weeds and repaired fences. . . . Stevens said she and her husband still have some supporters. . . . "We think that our friends still like us and the people who have supported us in the past are willing to give us a benefit of the doubt," Stevens, who with her husband has declined interviews with a number of other news organizations, told NPR. ILLINOIS   Judges are to rule on law, not their views Dave Deetjen, Naperville 12-14-07 -- U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman complains in his ruling on Nov. 14 that the state's "Silent Reflection and Student Prayer Act" would violate the First Amendment. He conveniently truncates the phrase to suit his own personal perspective that government "shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion." . . . Without completing the phrase, as so many proponents of separation of church and state do, the First Amendment appears to support his reasoning of freedom from religion. Importantly, the phrase continues with "…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". The founding fathers clearly intended our country to have freedom of religion, not from religion. . . . This type of judicial ruling clearly supports Fred Thompson's contention that the judicial branch of our government is overreaching and is now in the habit of legislating from the bench. If Judge Gettleman is incapable of including these crucial final six words in that phrase then he shouldn't be our representative interpreting the U.S. Constitution. . . . What can we do about judges like this? We should support presidential candidates like Fred Thompson who will "appoint strict constructionist judges who will interpret law, not impose their views on us by legislating from the bench." NEVADA   Appeals court dismisses complaint against judge Panel says that despite The Times' allegations of favoritism in judgments and fees, the jurist's ties didn't affect his impartiality. By Ashley Powers, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 12-12-07 --The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has dismissed a complaint against a federal judge who awarded more than $4.8 million in judgments and fees to people with whom he had long-standing political and business ties. . . . U.S. District Judge James C. Mahan of Las Vegas, who was featured in a 2006 Los Angeles Times investigation into the Nevada judiciary, was cleared of allegations that he had personal connections with those involved in cases he heard. . . . Many of those relationships "were not of the nature or extent alleged" and didn't affect the judge's impartiality, the 9th Circuit Judicial Council said. . . . A special committee that interviewed more than 30 witnesses, got 16 affidavits and reviewed media coverage and court transcripts unanimously recommended that the complaint be dismissed. . . . Mahan, appointed to the federal bench in 2002, declined to comment. He told the Las Vegas Review-Journal in October that he was "very heartened" by the findings. "All a judge has is his integrity," Mahan said. "This whole thing was an attack on my integrity, and frankly, I felt like it was an attack on the Nevada judiciary." GENERAL A crash course in injustice Chicago Sun-Times Editorial 12-4-07 -- Cynics who believe there are two sets of laws — a lenient one that applies to beautiful people and a tougher one for Ordinary Joes — got confirmation last month with the sentence handed down to a former model convicted of killing three men in a botched suicide attempt. . . . They're very angry about the light punishment handed down Nov. 26 to Jeanette Sliwinski, 25 — an eight-year sentence that, with time already served, will allow her to be released in just 19 months. That, even though three innocent men are dead. There has even been a call to oust Cook County Circuit Court Judge Garritt Howard, by voting "no” the next time his name comes up on the judicial retention ballot. . . . We share that outrage and sense of unfairness. However, the judge was merely following the letter of the law. Instead of trying to oust the judge, critics should try to change the law. MASSACHUSETTS    When judges judge themselves, it’s hard to get a clear explanation of law, order By Margery Eagan, Boston Herald Columnist 12-3-07 -- No doubt beleaguered Superior Court Judge Kathe Tuttman took welcome comfort when the state’s two top judges Friday decried her “public vilification” over the release of killer Daniel Tavares. . . . But their point - that Tuttman made no mistake and that her critics ignore law and facts and undermine the system - is ridiculous. . . . If anyone is undermining the system here it’s Supreme Judicial Court Justice Margaret H. Marshall and Robert A. Mulligan, chief administrative judge. Their circle-the-wagons and blame-the-idiot-media stance just gives fodder to those who think the system, one of complete secrecy, by the way, is rigged by judges to protect, who else, but judges? . . . Did you know the only scrutiny judges get is in secret and anonymous, with no public access? . . . In Friday’s statement, Marshall and Mulligan repeatedly invoke the Code of Judicial Conduct to say why judges can’t do this, or that. Yet judges who go awry rarely face serious sanctions. (See Judge Ernest B. Murphy, reprimanded Thanksgiving eve for sending “threatening” letters to this paper’s publisher. He’s still on leave with full pay; the secrecy-first judiciary won’t say why). November 2007 FEDERAL COURTS Atheists and their lackey judges Phyllis Schlafly 11-30-07 -- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Dec. 4 will again hear a challenge by Michael Newdow to the Pledge of Allegiance and its phrase "under God." Newdow won his prior lawsuit against the pledge until the Supreme Court, perhaps to avoid public outrage in the 2004 presidential election year, tossed out his case on a procedural technicality. . . . Newdow's first case caused a national uproar when he initially prevailed, but Congress failed to seize the day by withdrawing jurisdiction from the courts over this issue. Instead, Congress took away from courts jurisdiction over lawsuits against gun manufacturers and, at the urging of former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., over lawsuits by environmentalists against clearing brush in South Dakota. . . . The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is notoriously hostile to religion, so it could give us another anti-pledge decision. Atheism has spread in influence to where it controls many federal courts, many public schools and now even Hollywood, with the atheistic movie "The Golden Compass" promoted for Christmastime entertainment. . . . Classical music with religious names was banned at graduation by Everett School District No. 2 in Washington state. The school ordered that only "secular" music would be allowed even though there were no lyrics or words spoken, and a federal court held against the students. . . . Judge Robert S. Lasnik, who was appointed to the bench by former President Bill Clinton in 1998, wrote the decision. Lasnik was the same judge who struck down a Washington state law banning video games that demonstrated how to kill policemen and wrote in his decision that violent video games are "as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature." FEDERAL COURTS Judges should uphold justice, not make policy By Freedom New Mexico 11-28-07 -- The federal courts are supposed to serve as impartial referees on questions of constitutionality, not as unelected policy-making boards or regulators. . . . But at a time when almost every public policy dispute becomes a court case, many judges seem to have embraced their ersatz roles with gusto, further politicizing what should be an apolitical judiciary and incrementally removing democracy from the democratic process. . . . Among the most activist courts is the famously liberal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, which earlier this month tossed out higher federal fuel economy standards proposed by the Bush administration, and demanded they be rewritten, taking CO2’s impact on global warming into account. ALASKA   Judicial activism, again Ken Connor, BP News 11-28-07 -- There they go again! . . . Like termites gnawing away at the foundation of a building, judicial activists are eating away at the foundations of representative government in America. The damage they cause threatens our ability to govern ourselves through our elected representatives and reallocates the delicate balance of powers which our forefathers were careful to distribute among separate branches of government. . . . The most recent example of judges usurping legislative authority comes from Alaska where that state's Supreme Court, by a narrow 3-2 vote, struck down the 10-year-old Parental Consent Act. The act required girls 16 years and younger to get a parent's permission before receiving an abortion. Typically, such children can't go on a school field trip, join a sports team or attend an R-rated movie without parental consent. Ah, but this case involved an attempt by the legislature to encroach on what the political left regards as its most sacred of rites, the right to abortion. . . . And even though Alaska's House and Senate passed the act by substantial majorities, it only took three judges to torpedo the law. The judicial sages held that the act encroached on a minor's "fundamental right to privacy" protected under the state's constitution. Parental rights, which the legislature sought to protect, were jettisoned by the court. The court held that a minor's decision to abort, unlike all other medical decisions, cannot be hindered by a parental "veto power." NEW YORK   Panel Rebukes Judge, Citing ‘Lunacy’ in Court By Danny Hakim 11-28-07 -- The next time you pass through the city court system in Niagara Falls, N.Y., remember to turn your cellphone off. . . . Yesterday, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct recommended the removal of a judge in Niagara Falls City Court who had what the commission’s chairman called “two hours of inexplicable madness” when a cellphone rang in his courtroom. . . . On the morning of March 11, 2005, the judge, Robert M. Restaino, was presiding over a slate of domestic-violence cases when he heard a phone ring. According to the commission’s report, he told the roughly 70 people in the courtroom that “every single person is going to jail in this courtroom” unless the phone was turned over. . . . A security officer was posted at the door while other officers tied to find the phone, but failed. . . . After a brief recess, Judge Restaino returned to the bench and asked the defendant who had been standing before him in the front of the courtroom when the phone rang if he knew whose it was. . . . “No,” said the defendant, Reginald Jones. “I was up here.” The ringing had come from the back of the room. . . . Nonetheless, the judge scrapped plans to release Mr. Jones, set bail at $1,500 and sent him into custody. . . . He was the first of 46 defendants to be sent into custody that day because of what could be called the case of the ringing cellphone. The judge opined at length about his frustration over the phone. OHIO   OUR VIEW: Justice must be blind in Ohio, but that does not mean blindfolded The Morning Journal 11-28-07 -- Justice is blind, the saying goes. Justice should be blind, meaning impartial -- treating all people equally without favor or prejudice. . . . But justice should not be blindfolded, that is, prevented from seeing all the facts relevant to making a correct judgment. . . . For that reason, we hope the Ohio Supreme Court decides to rule that prosecutors must provide defense attorneys with all the material they have in making the case against a defendant. . . . Right now, Ohio court rules require prosecutors to provide the defense with ''exculpatory'' evidence that would tend to clear a defendant. But it is left to prosecutors to decide what constitutes exculpatory evidence. That opens the possibility of innocent people being convicted because prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense. . . . When a judge ordered the Cuyahoga County prosecutor to give defense attorneys all the police reports on a man accused of killing a police officer, the prosecutor balked and asked the Supreme Court to block the judge's order. Prosecutors contend that giving witness statements to the defense can, and has, led to innocent people being killed or intimidated, according to an Associated Press story on the case in Cleveland. OHIO   Money talks in election of judges Ohio's system draws criticism Reginald Fields, Plain Dealer Bureau 11-26-07 -- Columbus- Ohio Supreme Court Justice Maureen O'Connor in 2002 raised $1.8 million in campaign donations, mainly from Republicans and other conservative interests, to hold on to a job that demands she never show favoritism. . . . Now facing re-election, she's at it again, forced to court donors with deep pockets while maintaining the independence her job demands. But don't blame her, she says. . . . Fault a state election process where successful judicial candidates historically have had to shed their air of impartiality to act much like politicians, including siding with a political party. Campaign season is the only time court rules allow judges to identify with a party. . . . "I'm stuck with the system that is there," said O'Connor, a former Summit County prosecutor who now lives in Cleveland Heights. "So please tell me how I can run statewide and get my message out without scrutiny? . . . "Quite frankly, I think the candidates are a victim of the system," she said. FEDERAL COURTS Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour Evolution News & Views 11-21-07 -- Federal judges don’t ordinarily travel around the country speaking about their judicial rulings, but Judge Jones is no ordinary federal judge. While promoting the PBS-NOVA special on intelligent design, he recently appeared the Lehrer Newshour, where he made striking admissions that demonstrate the activist nature of the Kitzmiller ruling. . . . Two hallmarks of judicial activism are (1) the tendency to resolve questions outside the scope of the judiciary, which are best left to other branches of government, and (2) the intent to make policy and influence parties outside of the case. Judge Jones’ own admissions on the Lehrer Newshour demonstrate that both of these criticisms correctly apply to his Kitzmiller ruling. . . . Judge Jones’ Expansive Intrusion into Legislative Questions . . . First, Judge Jones admitted that a key question his ruling answered was whether intelligent design was “good science,” and he states that “after six weeks of largely expert testimony, I came to the conclusion that it simply was not good science” (emphasis added). This proves his judicial activism because it shows that, in his mind, a key question was not the constitutionality of Dover’s policy in particular, but rather a broad sweeping question about whether ID is “good science,” something that is totally inappropriate and unnecessary for the federal judiciary to answer in such a case over the constitutionality of a science curriculum. As I co-wrote with David DeWolf and John West in Montana Law Review, Judge Jones confused the proper question he was supposed to answer. Judicial independence, judicial accountability and activist judges By Terry Lewis, MY VIEW 11-21-07 -- In an Oct. 30 My View column about the marriage amendment, Orlando attorney John Stemberger referred to “unelected, activist judges” trying to force their views upon society. In a subsequent letter (Nov. 8) James Vaught complained about judges who don't just interpret the law, but rewrite it. As a judge, and a citizen who respects the unique and important role of the judicial branch of government, I offer a few observations about some oft-used, but misunderstood terms: Judicial independence means to me the freedom to decide a case based upon a good-faith attempt to discern what the law is, and apply that law without regard to personal preferences or external pressure, and without fear of adverse personal consequences. It does not mean the freedom to decide a case based on what you think the law should be. Judicial accountability means taking responsibility and being answerable for the intellectual integrity of your decisions, i.e., demonstrating that they are the result of a good-faith effort to discern and apply the law as noted above. It does not mean doing what the legislative or executive branches want you to do, or what might be overwhelmingly popular at the time. Judicial activism means deciding a case based upon your personal philosophy or preferences, demonstrating a willingness to ignore legal precedent and principles in order to reach a desired result. It is not synonymous with judicial independence, but rather its opposite. The framers of our constitution realized that if we were to be a nation of laws, we would need a way to resolve disputes over the meaning of those laws. They also understood the danger of combining this function, the judicial power, with either the executive or legislative branches. They felt that the best way to insure the fair and impartial administration of the laws was with a separate, independent judicial branch. James Madison, when proposing the bill of rights, noted: “Independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the legislative or executive.” Yes, yes, you say, but what about judges who are not content to simply interpret the law, but want to make law? The problem with that analysis is that every time a court interprets a law, it makes law. For example, the first amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law ... .abridging the freedom of speech. . . " One view is that it means what it says - no law. Another view is that certain speech, such as obscenity, or the shouting of "fire" in a crowded theater, is not protected speech. Whichever interpretation the court applies, it makes law. It is, of course, the latter view which prevailed in the Supreme Court and is now the law of the land. Whether or not you think a particular decision correctly interpreted the law, it becomes legal precedent that, as a judge, you must apply to cases before you. Even the deciding court can not recede from its decisions except under the most compelling circumstances. Thus, those who advocate for the selection of judges they believe will “overturn” some previous decision, are, in effect, advocating judicial activism. For those judges who ignore legal precedent and are interested only in reaching a desired result, regardless of the law, there are safeguards and remedies: Rulings that are out of hand can be appealed; the law can be revised to make its meaning more clear; and state court judges can be challenged at the next election. Most importantly, we should be careful to select persons of integrity who we believe will exercise independence and impartiality in their decision making. An equally important question is, how do we maintain judicial independence when judges are elected and can thus be voted out of office for unpopular decisions? For that we must rely on two things: 1. the courage and integrity of individual judges, and 2. an informed electorate committed to the principle of judicial independence, and willing to defend it against unfair criticism. Our system of government provides a very good framework for the protection of individual liberties. An integral part of that system is an independent judiciary accountable to the public to be independent. It is our burden, and our responsibility as citizens, to insure that it remains so. Leon County Circuit Court Judge Terry Lewis was appointed to the court in 1998 by then-Gov. Lawton Chiles, having served as a Leon County judge since 1989. A novelist and author of "Conflict of Interest," he gained national attention in 2000 with his ruling that then-Republican Secretary of State Katherine Harris properly exercised her discretion to certify results of presidential election without the hand recounts. Contact him at TerryLe@leoncountyfl.gov GENERAL Danger! Judicial Activists at Work! By Ken Connor 11-9-07 -- There they go again! . . . Like termites gnawing away at the foundation of a building, judicial activists are eating away at the foundations of representative government in America. The damage they cause threatens our ability to govern ourselves through our elected representatives and reallocates the delicate balance of powers which our forefathers were careful to distribute among separate branches of government. . . . The most recent example of judges usurping legislative authority comes from Alaska where that state's Supreme Court, by a narrow 3-2 vote, struck down the 10 year old Parental Consent Act. The Act required girls 16 years and younger to get a parent's permission before receiving an abortion. Typically, such children can't go on a school field trip, join a sports team or attend an "R" rated movie without parental consent. Ah, but this case involved an attempt by the legislature to encroach on what the political left regards as its most sacred of rites, the right to abortion! And even though Alaska's House and Senate passed the Act by substantial majorities, it only took three paltry judges to torpedo the law. The judicial sages held that the Act encroached on a minor's "fundamental right to privacy" protected under the state's constitution. Parental rights, which the legislature sought to protect, were jettisoned by the Court. The Court held that a minor's decision to abort, unlike all other medical decisions, cannot be hindered by a parental "veto power." WEST VIRGINIA    Public pays for Starcher's perversion of justice By Steve Cohen 11-9-07 -- Out of reverence for the Constitutional separation of powers doctrine seldom does a federal court stand in the way of a ruling from a state bench. . . . But, ah, West Virginia has bucked the trend this fall with a finding by U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr. that the feds may have to pull the reins on a justice who sits on the Mountain State's highest tribunal. . . . Judge Copenhaver found that West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Larry Starcher may have indeed displayed "strong personal bias" with public pronouncements that a party to case pending before him was "stupid" and "a clown." . . . Starcher could have recused himself and spared West Virginia the embarrassment of a rebuke from the federal courts and yet another blow to the reputation of our court system. But no. October 2007 The War for the Constitution The anniversary of Robert Bork's failed nomination reminds us what's at stake in the coming election. By Gary L. McDowell, WSJ Editorial 10-23-07 -- Twenty years ago today the United States Senate voted to reject President Reagan's nomination of Judge Robert H. Bork to the Supreme Court. The senators may have had every reason to believe that was the end of the story. However ugly it had been, however much time it had taken, Mr. Bork's defeat was only one more routine sacrifice to partisan politics. But time would prove wrong anyone who actually thought that. The battle over Mr. Bork was politically transformative, its constitutional lessons enduring. . . . To many at the time (and still today) it was inconceivable that a man of Mr. Bork's professional accomplishments and personal character could be found unacceptable for a seat on the Court. Warren Burger summed it up for many when he described Mr. Bork as simply the best qualified nominee in the former chief justice's own professional lifetime--a span of years that included the appointments of such judicial luminaries as Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter. Such praise was no empty exaggeration. . . . A former Yale law professor and U.S. Solicitor General, Mr. Bork was, at the time of his nomination, a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. When he was a circuit court judge, Mr. Bork's opinions not only were never overruled on appeal, but on several occasions his dissents were adopted by the Supreme Court as its majority view. . . . In an earlier day such an appointment would have been celebrated as adding breadth, depth and luster to the highest bench. Instead, the nominee faced a mauling by those who set out not only to destroy him personally but to discredit all that he stood for as a jurist. . . . It was immediately clear that the unprecedented vote of 58-42 against his confirmation reflected something far more historic and fundamental than an ordinary partisan standoff. The confrontation in fact had been one of the most cataclysmic and divisive events in American domestic politics during the second half of the 20th century. The reason was that Mr. Bork's opponents succeeded in making the fight over his nomination into a contest over the future of the Constitution. . . . The issue that united the judge's critics in their fiery, scorched-earth opposition was never his ability or reputation but rather his theory of judging. Mr. Bork's belief was that judges and justices in their interpretations of the Constitution must be bound to the original intentions of its framers. In his sober constitutional jurisprudence there was no room for any airy talk about a general right of privacy, allegedly unwritten constitutions, vague notions of unenumerated rights, or what the progressive Justice Black once derided as "any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept." For Mr. Bork, the framers said what they meant, and meant what they said. . . . Mr. Bork's approach had its roots in hundreds of years of common law history as well as in the political philosophy of those whose works serve as the foundation of American constitutionalism. Chief Justice John Marshall had summed up that received tradition when he proclaimed that recourse to a lawgiver's original intention is "the most sacred rule of interpretation." In Marshall's view, it is always "the great duty of a judge who construes an instrument . . . to find the intention of its makers." As with Marshall, so also with Mr. Bork. Eleven years ago eBay did not have any customers; today they have over 150,000,000 users and are growing globally at a rate of 100,000 users per day. Click logo now!!!! Proceeds from your membership benefit us! With NiceSale you have the opportunity to be a part of Internet history and be one of the early members. Membership with NiceSale is very exciting because your membership allows you to share in NiceSale's revenues. Each item you list can attract a buyer and a potential new member or user for you.  EBay is nothing like NiceSale; with NiceSale you can share in the growth and success.   UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Who are the bench's judicial activists? Looking at the Supreme Court justices' voting records, the lines between activism and restraint may surprise you. By Thomas J. Miles and Cass R. Sunstein 10-22-07 -- The Supreme Court has returned to work, and court watchers are again asking the perennial questions: Which justices are most partisan? Who are the real activists? . . . We have tried to make progress on these questions by examining how the justices vote and letting their records speak for themselves. We explored the justices' voting patterns from 1989 through 2005, an unusually long period of continuity within the court. (No reliable conclusions can be drawn about Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito because they have so few votes.) . . . Everyone looks at the high-profile constitutional cases, but to get a real sense of how justices approach their jobs, it's best to analyze the more routine, less-visible cases that are often more important to people's daily lives. . . . For this reason, we examined all cases in which members of the court, using settled principles, evaluated the legality of important decisions by federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Labor Relations Board, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Food and Drug Administration. FEDERAL COURT Judicial activism strikes once again 10-22-07 -- Recently a federal judge issued a restraining order baring implementation of a law requiring businesses with employees whose name and Social Security number didn't match to correct mismatches or terminate the employee. Supposedly it places an undue burden, a "staggering impact" on the employer and could