Monday, Mark discussed the difference between a judicial activist and an originalist justice.

You can read Mark’s monologue below, as well.

If a federal appeals court judge is an extremist ideolgue, he should be impeached. If a federal appeals court judge is against basic human rights, he should be impeached. If a federal appeals court judge is beholden to a political movement — whether the right (or left) wing — he should be impeached. If a federal appeals court judge is incapable of adjudicating based on the facts and law presented to him, he should be impeached. If a federal appeals court judge refuses to honor his oath to uphold the Constitution, he should be impeached. I am not aware of any efforts, or even any statement, during Federal Appeals Court Judge Sam Alito’s 15 years on the appellate bench urging his impeachment. And the reason is simple — to paraphrase from Charles Chuckie Schmukie Schumer — Sam Alito is a judge’s judge. And yet, this are among the attacks that have been launched against Judge Alito by radical left senators like Schmuckie and the Cape Cod Orace Ted Kennedy.

What upsets the leftist senators and their friends who run these ACLU-front groups is that Alito takes his role and responsibilities as a judge seriously. He is not an advocate for their agenda or any other agenda. What upsets the leftists is that Alito HAS NOTHING BUT respect for the Constitution. What upsets the leftists is that Alito HAS NOTHING BUT respect for representative government. What upsets the leftists is that Alito HAS NOTHING BUT respect for the limits of his power under the Constitution. This is why they seek to disparage him. In short, Alito WILL NOT use his position to advance the leftwing agenda.

Now, let’s look at exactly who Alito’s critics are.

The Cape Cod Orace – Ted Kennedy. Here’s a man who had another student take a test for him, and was thrown out of Harvard. Alito went to Princeton and Yale, graduated with highest honors, and has a sterling academic record.

Schmuckie Schumer. Here’s a man who says he believes in precedent, which means following past Supreme Court rulings, but then says he believes in a living and breathing Constitution, which means a justice should rule however he pleases. He is illiterate when it comes to the Constitution and American history.

People for the American Way. This groups was founded by Norman Lear and is a Hollywood front-organization.

Alliance for Justice. The president of this group, Nan Aron, was a lawyer for the ACLU, where she litigated on behalf of brutal prisoners.

NARAL. They not only support abortion, they support infanticide — or what’s called partial birth abortion; they oppose parental notification; they oppose a 24 hour waiting period; they oppose spousal notifcation. They are in conflict with a majority of Americans.

Nancy Pelosi. She represents one of the most leftwing congressional districts in the entire nation.

Harry Reid. He’s a putz.

And here’s what these leftists and their groups want:

They want a judiciary that dictates policy and imposes it by fiat.

They want to advance their leftwing agenda through unelected judges even when they lose elections.

They talk about enfranchising ex-felons, but seek to disenfranchise the rest of us by weakening the representative part of our government.

They want to use the courts to confer due process rights on terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay.

They want to use the courts to confer due process rights and welfare benefits on illegal immigrants.

They want to eliminate the death penalty.

They want to eliminate all aspects of religion from the public square, which is protected under the 1st amendment.

They want to further restrict free political speech, which is also protected under the 1st amendment.

They want to destroy private property rights, which are protected under the 4th amendment.

They want to undermine individual rights, which are protected under the 9th amendment.

They want to continue to weaken the authority of state goverments, which is protected under the 10th amendment.

They oppose a colorblind society, as compelled by the 14th amendment.

Meanwhile, the seek to rewrite the Constitution:

The right to privacy is nothing more than the Court manufacturing a power to advance the far-left cultural agenda, rather than leave those decisions to Congress and the states.

The use of foreign law is nothing more than a bald power grab by the judiciary to ignore the limits the Constitution places on judges and the federal government.

I also notice that Schmuckie Schumer and others are attempting to misuse the phrase “judicial activism” to define conservative nominees. They are doing this because the American people don’t want unelected, unaccountable lawyers dictating national policy. This is how leftwing propaganda works — they seek to conceal their real actions and intentions.

A judicial activist, to put it simply, is a judge who abuses his power to advance his personal policy preferences. He becomes an advocate. He seeks to use the law to institutionalize his policy preferences. He rejects the notion of judicial restraint, as compelled by the Constitution. An originalist is the opposite of a judicial activist. He believes the Constitution must be adhered to, that there’s an amendment process for changing the document if the people demand it, that elected officials are responsible for making policy, and that a judge’s job is to try to discern what the text of the Constitution means based on the understanding at the time it was adopted. Otherwise, we are left with no law, we are left with a judicial oligarchy.