"activist Judges" -- Is That We Identify Changes To Your Regulation How, Or Can It Be A Travesty Of Justice?

[hurst]

Okay, I've been contemplating this for some days -- considering that the media has been paying consideration to the SCOTUS nomination of Sotomayor at the least. Moreover, there was a discussion about recommendations in Illinois regarding the age parents are permitted to permit their little ones to be house alone. And even a conversation on 4th amendment rights with regard to road blocks. All that has me considering, questioning and trying to locate diverse opinions.Need to judges have any part in "modifying" regulations. For example -- except for judges rulings, could the USA have sophisticated up to now and swiftly on civil-rights laws? It definitely was illegal, for instance, for a "mixed-race" pair to marry not completely all that extended-ago. But individuals produced it come about anyhow, challenged the law, and judges policies that the law was unconstitutional. Consequently please do not go on it there, is that judicial activism or upholding regulations?This is NOT a dialogue of Sotomayor. It IS asking for view, even so, so please preserve it civil.Is "Judicial Activism" great or negative? Why?

[stanciyf]

Judicial activism is normally thrown around by 1 group as a way to criticize other individuals.   it is practically in the focus of the beholder, and consequently undefinable in a considerable way.   Consider the Schiavo case.  The courts attempted to *force* a healthcare facility and family members to keep her alive, against the express wishes of spouse, and against current law.   Which was judicial activism at its most damaging and egregious.   Take into account the Bush-Gore case in 2000/2001 - one more case exactly where in actuality the judge intentionally and actively made the choice which was by no implies pursuing prior precedent and the concept of law.  Once again, a common example of judicial activism.   Or contemplate the separate but similar laws which had been sruck along in brown v. Table of Education in 1954.  That was judicial activism, kind of, but significantly less so because it was surrounded by the structure.   Consequently the actual concern is that the word does not imply something.

[roselyn]

"Judicial activism", like a buzzword, is basically that: a buzzword. It is utilized solely by conservatives to generous choices they do not like. It really is never ever place on similarly "activist" options by conventional justices.There is just a reputable discussion to be utilized more than precisely the location that judges sustain with regards to interpreting the law, nevertheless when couched in terms of "judicial activism" it is in fact more about philosophy than about jurisprudence.

[Emlyn]

PamPerdue said: 1 "Judicial activism", as a buzzword, is just that: a buzzword. It's applied exclusively by conservatives to liberal decisions they don't like. It's never applied to equally "activist" decisions by conservative justices.There is a valid debate to be held over exactly the position that judges hold with respect to interpreting the law, but when couched in terms of "judicial activism" it's really more about ideology than about jurisprudence. 55 months ago

[Cranley]

The Supreme Court waited for the Gramm-Rudman bill to be passed, then ruled that it was unConstitutional because it put spending decisions in the hands of the President. Spending and laws are the purview of the legislature. The President, the "executive branch," executes those laws(i.e., commander-in-chief of the military, is in charge of the INS, FBI, CIA, etc.) The Supreme Court?s job is to rule on the Constitutionality of what anyone does. Thus, 1954 "Brown vs. Board of Education" ruling was, initially, that the "Plessy vs. Feguson" ruling was stupid, that separate is never equal. But it included commands to desegregate "with all haste." Okay, good so far, but not technically the place of the court to say that. They?ve been drunk with power ever since.

[Isaac]

Usually, a person?s decrying a judge as "activist" betrays ideological disagreement with that judge?s rulings.  That said, in my view, the role of judges is to interpret laws in the light of the history of their intention, and to strike down laws that violate the intention of the Constitution: to provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, secure rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, and so on. Discussing to what extent the intention of the Constitution should be interpreted in the light of changes in society since the Constitution's establishment is part of the role of judges, in their capacity as the most visible interpreters and upholders of the law.  But i sure do wish that people would keep a civil(and civil-society-promoting) tongue in their heads in discussing what the judges say.   So, in my opinion, some "activism" on the part of judges is necessary to keep society from being fossilized in a matrix of outdated societal conditions, but too much undermines the Constitution.  Let us cleave to the middle way -- radicalism and fundamentalism are inherently suspect, because they have tunnel vision and so cannot take a fully informed view.

[Birkett]

Judicial Activism is hard to define, and shouldn't be used as a label Judicial activism is usually slung around by one group as a way to criticize others.   It's pretty much in the eye of the beholder, and therefore undefinable in a serious way.   Take the Schiavo case.  The courts tried to *force* the hospital and family to keep her alive, against the express wishes of husband, and against existing law.   That was judicial activism at its most negative and egregious.   Take the Bush-Gore case in 2000/2001 - another case where the court actively and knowingly made a decision that was in no way following previous precedent and the rule of law.  Again, an example of judicial activism.   Or take the separate but equal laws that were sruck down in brown v. Board of Education in 1954.  That was judicial activism, sort of, but less so because it was bounded by the constitution.   So the real problem is that the term doesn't mean anything. ElBanditoRoso 55 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Dalziel]

It is technically illegal. The Supreme Court waited for the Gramm-Rudman bill to be passed, then ruled that it was unConstitutional because it put spending decisions in the hands of the President. Spending and laws are the purview of the legislature. The President, the "executive branch," executes those laws(i.e., commander-in-chief of the military, is in charge of the INS, FBI, CIA, etc.) The Supreme Court?s job is to rule on the Constitutionality of what anyone does. Thus, 1954 "Brown vs. Board of Education" ruling was, initially, that the "Plessy vs. Feguson" ruling was stupid, that separate is never equal. But it included commands to desegregate "with all haste." Okay, good so far, but not technically the place of the court to say that. They?ve been drunk with power ever since.   danielpauldavis 55 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.