decisions overturned on appeal and your reputation as a capable jurist impugned. That is NOT how the law applied to a specific set of facts is done. I believe it's called judicial activism. One might see an impeachment down the road.

Lots of business to be drummed up.

Even if every bogus ruling is overturned, it wastes time and money from citizens who often do not have the resources to carry the fight to the next level.

the Judicial System.

Fifteen since 1803
https://ballotpedia.org/Impeachment_of_federal_judges

AGAINST activist judges. They forgot to add: "...if they are not Republican."

All of their screaming about "legislating from the bench."

Seems to be completely the hypocritical par for the course of Mar A Lago these days.

They screamed about President Obama not having enough experience in government in 2008.. then elect this in 2016.

They scream about family values, and even want to legislate them.. then elect the 3x married 5 children across 3 wives president.

They scream about going nuclear on the filibuster when it was used to block 76 judicial appointments before the nuclear option was engaged.. many of those 76 given with no reason or cause.. THEN go nuclear on the very first attempt to appoint a justice, filibustered with reason, and cause.

They cry about big government and government intervention and spending.. THEN scream for FEMA funds when one of their states has a natural disaster. (clarification here, I'm only referring to the state in the capacity of a Republican governor, electoral collage, and senators. I'm not insinuating that the state is all republican or doesn't deserve assistance. Just pointing out their hypocrisy on it)

As a party, they really have no shame at all, and their hypocrisy seems to really have no bounds or limits at all.

. . .have been activist jurists for the last 75 years.

Look at Mafia Tony. His claim that he didn't interpret the Constitution, but interpreted what the framers were THINKING when they wrote it, based upon other stuff they wrote afterward. In other words, he was practicing judicial activism by making decisions on his ability to read the minds of people who have been dead for nearly 200 years.

And he was interpreting the Constitution while not interpreting the Constitution.

These judges have been scam artists since the Truman era, at least.

Almost nobody, absent Warren and Fortas, have been as activist as the conservatives on the court.

Repubs have been doing this for many, many years.

Oh yeah, those things that have no proof, nor evidence, nor logic, nor rationality, etc. Gotcha!

Ps. Yeah

A law's professor who advocates to open the door to arbitrariness and abuses??

As lawyer, it shivers down my spine

Bon sang mais qu'est-ce qu'il ne faut pas entendre !!!

You'd be surprised how many of them think they have carte blanche to do what they want as opposed to what the law requires.

In North Korea or any ISIS-held area.

...and taking a judicial oath while holding and espousing that belief is tantamount to perjury.

And what it says is that judges who have a moral objection to the death penalty should recuse themselves from death penalty cases.

Frankly, its a poorly written and reasoned article, but it doesn't advocate that judges shouldn't follow the law -- it advocates that judges should recuse themselves from death penalty cases if they're morally opposed to the death penalty.