You want a judge who is going to be on the Court to say: I understand the balance of power. I have read the law, and I understand the precedents that relate to this particular kind of fact pattern. And based on the law and based on these facts in this particular case, I believe that either the Executive should have the power or not. But I do not come to that conclusion based upon a preconceived political, ideological notion that we need to rein in Executive power any more than I believe we should rein in legislative power or judicial power. This is what a lot of us mean when we talk about judicial activism. It is the difference between someone who comes to the Court with firmly held philosophical beliefs that would cause that individual to be more predisposed to rule on the basis of those beliefs than on the facts of the case or the law in any particular situation. So when my colleagues on the Democratic side say they are looking for a nominee who will have a penchant for ruling in a particular way in particular cases, you will see objections from people like me who will say: No, that is wrong. That is activism. That is basing decisions on ideology rather than on what the law is.
On the recordApril 13, 2010
Editor's note · Context
Kyl discusses the importance of judicial impartiality and the dangers of judicial activism.
Share
More from Jon Kyl
Nov 26, 2018
I am concerned that the President continues to make statements and pursue actions that have undercut America's leadership position in the world.
Oct 5, 2018
I know that the Democratic leader is scheduled to speak next, but if there is a minute that I could take in between, I just wanted to comment on my colleague who spoke yesterday, Senator Collins. I had wanted to come to the floor to speak…
Nov 14, 2023
Yes, Mr. Chairman, Representative Jacobs, the whole point is if the adversary believes that our system no longer functions, then they don't need to try to wipe it out at the beginning of a conflict.





