The State Chamber of Oklahoma, a key backer of tort reform, quickly fired off an outraged news release.
“Regrettably, the activist judges on this court have shown they will continue to anoint themselves the ultimate arbiter of the state’s social, moral and legal values,” said Fred Morgan, chamber president and CEO. “It is clear Oklahomans need to take a serious look at revising our state Constitution to protect the people from an activist judiciary.”
And faster than it takes a ventriloquist to dust off his dummy, House Republican leaders unveiled plans for an interim study next fall on the notion of — fancy that! — term limits for judges on the appellate and Supreme Court levels.
“This study will be a healthy evaluation of our judicial process to make sure we are properly serving the public and correctly enforcing the will of the people,” House Speaker T.W. Shannon, R-Lawton, said in a prepared statement. “The forefathers created a system of checks and balances. We must make sure that system is not completely controlled by a powerful handful of activists.”
But how can you tell activist judges from the non-activist variety? Simple: The activists are the ones who disagree with you.
Hey! Read This: