Your editorial, entitled "I Didn’t Vote For That Your Honor," contained a number of valid points that I would like to respond to and expand upon. As a legislator, I am also concerned by the growing number of federal judges who look to legislate from the bench, rather than interpret the Constitution of the United States, as it is their job to do. This sort of judicial activism is both harmful and inappropriate. Voters are charged with the responsibility of electing legislators who, in turn, have the power to create laws. Any judge who takes that power into his own hands is overstepping his bounds, and disenfranchising voters in the process. In order to deal with this issue, we must first identify the very root of the problem; that is, where are these activist judges coming from? As the evidence shows, and as I hope to demonstrate, many of these judges are appointees of politicians who prescribe to a rather liberal ideology.

For example, consider Judge Stephen Reinhardt, a member of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, who was appointed to his post by democratic President Jimmy Carter. Recently, this particular judge was part of a decision that declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it contains the phrase "one nation under God." Reinhardt, whose extreme activism is well-documented, has a history of making rulings based on his own personal views, regardless of how out-of-touch they may be. In addition to his handling of the Pledge of Allegiance, he allowed "cannabis clubs" to remain open in California, and he struck down the state of Washington’s ban on assisted suicide. Despite being reversed by the Supreme Court 11 times in 1996-97 alone, Reinhardt has clearly not abandoned his dangerous brand of liberal activism.

In addition, consider United States District Judge Thelton Henderson. In 1996, the people of California voted against the practice of giving preferences to minorities and women in contracts, hiring, and college admissions. However, Henderson didn’t like the results of this state-wide referendum. Ultimately, he decided that his opinions on the matter of affirmative action were more important than those of Californians across the state. Thus, he single-handedly defied the people of California, and overturned the results of their vote. He was also appointed by former President Carter.

Furthermore, there is the case involving United States District Judge Lawrence E. Kahn, an appointee of democratic President Bill Clinton. Three years ago, a convicted murderer named Mark Brooks asked to receive a sex-change operation, to be paid for by the taxpayers of New York, while incarcerated. The Department of Correctional Services denied this request on the grounds that such a surgery was not needed to save Brooks’ life. Brooks proceeded to file a lawsuit against state prison officials. Rather than dismissing this lawsuit a week ago, Judge Kahn went above the Department of Correctional Services, and allowed the suit to go forward. Kahn’s blatant attempt to change the way in which our prisons are managed is another form of activism. He serves as a classic example of a judicial activist appointed by a member of the left-wing.

Clearly, judicial activism is a real problem in our country today. Throwing out the law of the land in favor of personal agenda is unacceptable and intolerable. We need to reverse this trend and put in place judges that are dedicated to interpreting the law as it is written. If we fail to do so, the checks and balances put into place by our founding fathers, will increasingly erode, as judges will increasingly legislate from the bench, rather than deciding what is constitutional or not.

Steven L. Labriola, Member of the Assembly

12th District