With all the talk about activists

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
With all the talk about activists
Mon, 11-08-2004 - 9:46am

I looked up the word on OneLook Dictionary and this is what the Meriam says:

Main Entry: ac·tiv·ism
Pronunciation: 'ak-ti-"vi-z&m
Function: noun
: a doctrine or practice that emphasizes direct vigorous action especially in support of or opposition to one side of a controversial issue
- ac·tiv·ist /-vist/ noun or adjective
- ac·tiv·is·tic /"ak-ti-'vis-tik/ adjective

It appears to me that Bush can't have it both ways because both are activists.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Mon, 11-08-2004 - 10:28am
2 entries found for activist.



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 11-08-2004 - 10:34am

Yeah, and they all say the same thing......oppose or support and being vocal about it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2004
Mon, 11-08-2004 - 12:02pm
I believe you can.

If you look on the board with the issue of gay marriage, there are some people on the board who are completely for it. There are others who are completely against it. If they chose to, they would have the opportunity to apply their opinion in any ruling that came up regarding gay marriage in order to advance their own beliefs. There are a lot of us on the board who don't feel strongly one way or the other.

When you talk about an activist judge, you look at their past rulings and if they are carrying their own agenda (ie advancing gay rights, pro-life, what ever) you will be able to see it. There are a lot of judges who are able to look at a case, look at the Constitution, and rule on a case without the purpose of advancing their own agenda.

I realize that each person will bring their own beliefs and experiences to the bench, and that those will play a role in how they make decisions. That is not the same, however, as using your position to advance an agenda, be it conservative or liberal.