Our editorial today applauds the recent comments by Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Kay McFarland defending the judiciary. She argued that the “activist” charges arise when people don’t like rulings. And she noted the inconsistency in the charge: Massachusetts’ high court was “activist” because it overturned existing law to allow gay marriage, but state and federal courts were “activist” because they refused to make new law to keep Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube from being removed.
Courts certainly aren’t above criticism or reform. But McFarland is right to worry about whether the current demagoguery will erode the public’s trust in the legal system and undermine the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/23
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24

5 Comments
I completely agree with Justice Kay McFarland comments.
Activist Judge = One who renders an opinion with which you don’t agree.
At the risk of sounding like a fan of you-know-who: Ditto.
What? You mean that GW and congress weren’t taking the moral high ground when they lashed out at ‘activist judges’?
Judge McFarland must read Fox news.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157313,00.html