I am writing in a response to Mr. Tony Perkins essay "Restrain judicial activism" on USA Today.

It seems the Christian-right has been more vocal about judicial selections than the left for the past couple of decades. There are dreams about reversing the "Roe v. Wade" ruling and return to the conservative judicial landscape. They claim that activist judges have been influenced by the judges' personal left wing ideologies in judicial interpretation, and it is destroying the traditional fabric of our nation. They even point out to several decisions by these activist judges, which are somewhat convincing, that clearly show judicial biases in the court.

I completely agree with the Christian-right that activist judges should show restraint and should restrain their personal political ideological stance from influencing court decisions. However, I am troubled by some of logical hypocrisies put forward by Mr. Perkins in terms of solving the problem. Mr. Perkins believes that the problem lies on the balance between the two forms of judicial activism: liberal and conservative. His solution counters the liberal judicial activist judges by putting more conservative activist judges on the bench.

Of course, Mr. Perkins or anybody from the right will never admit that they are in favor for activist judges with a conservative twist. They merely say that they want judges who are not "activists", implying that the only the activist judges are liberal minded judges. They clearly do not want the public to think that the right wants to put conservative activist judges in the court system, because it destroys their original intent to get rid of all activist judges in the judicial field.

Although they will never admit that they want more conservative activist judges in the U.S. court system, I will nevertheless respect the right's implied agenda. However, I am still puzzled why the right is actively pursuing to put more conservative activist judges in the federal court system, when the majority of the Supreme Court Justices were nominated by conservative Republican Presidents. In a way, they do not realize that the current judicial field is supposed to be in their favor, but the right seems to be dissatisfied due to the lack of judicial progress in reversing "liberal" court decisions from the past.

Getting back to the original problem with judicial activism, I believe the solution lies on selecting qualified individuals with little or no involvement in polarizing political activities. Senators, who question the nominated candidate, should ask whether the candidate has been involved in polarizing activities and whether those activities play any role in judicial interpretations. My solution seems to be very idealistic, but alternative solutions from the right have no genuine component in solving the problem, but only to expand it.