This is embarrassing…
ChangeServant has posted a link to a 2006 candidate questionnaire for judges (who are elected in Georgia), distributed by the Georgia Christian Coalition.
The survey provides this definition: “Judicial activism occurs when a judge interjects his or her own personal beliefs and policy views to achieve a desired outcome by failing to adhere closely and strictly to the text of a statute or constitutional provision,” then asks candidates to state that this would in all cases be inappropriate.
It then goes on to ask a series of questions about the candidates’ personal beliefs and policy views on a list of controversial social issues, including abortion, same sex marriage, adoption by gay people, domestic partnership rights, and government endorsement of religion.
ChangeServant would like to know: If personal views are not to be interjected to achieve a desired outcome, why do we need to know what a judge’s personal views are?
Good question. If judges were elected in Virginia, do you suppose the Some Families Foundation, et al, would survey them for their qualifications as anti-equality activists, too? And would they have any idea how stupid that would look?
Another example of the rule: When anti-gay activists blather on and on about something they claim their opponents are doing, it’s a fairly reliable indicator of their own behavior.