Originally Posted By DouglasDubh It's seems a lot of people have a problem with this idea. They think anytime a Court overturns a law, it is an example of judicial activism. While I'm no expert, I don't believe this is the case. I've written up a series a test to determine if a decision is an example of judicial activism. Does the decision a. merely overturn relatively new law and therefore return conditions to what they were before the law was enacted? b. Necessitate the creation of new laws or include guidelines in order to execute the decision? a. rely on the writings of the Founding Fathers to explain what they meant in the Constitution? b. rely on an evolving sense of what the phrase means to society? a. Rely on precedent? b. Overturn precedent? a. Affirm a recognized, enumerated right? b. Discover a new right that has never been recognized before? If you end up with more "b's" than "a's", then you're looking at judicial activism.
Originally Posted By Elderp Judicial activism to me is just a pundit phrase people use when the court ruling doesn't go their way. We have checks and balances in this country, I am ok with it. Sometimes it goes my way and sometimes it doesn't.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Judicial activism to me is just a pundit phrase people use when the court ruling doesn't go their way.<< Exactamundo!
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Actually, I did. Your test fits your view of the court. See if you can't come up with something that isn't so self-serving.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Your test fits your view of the court.> How so? And why is my view of the court wrong?
Originally Posted By SuperDry DouglasDubh, your set of criteria would appear to argue against certain landmark rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education. Do you think that was a wrong decision?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Discover a new right that has never been recognized before?<< Just about every civil right granted to women and minorities falls under this. I think your test of what constitutes judicial activism doesn't really work.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <DouglasDubh, your set of criteria would appear to argue against certain landmark rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education.> Really? How so?
Originally Posted By DVC_dad All I can say is I only yell "Judicial Activism" when I disagree with the ruling. When I agree with it, the system is working flawlessly! I think a lot of the general public would have a much better view of the justice system if they could only grasp the difference between "Fairness" and "Justice" and learn that the two are often very different.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder ><DouglasDubh, your set of criteria would appear to argue against certain landmark rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education.> Really? How so?< Don't leave out his second question. Do you think Borwn was wrongly decided?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Do you think Borwn was wrongly decided?> I don't, but if he can show me that it meets my criteria of being judicial activism, then I might change my mind.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn I call it Judicial Activism when the court changes the interpretation of the requirements set forth by the Constitution, and attempts to "read between the lines" of supposed requirements that are not written.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Meanwhile, how about answering my post 7?" Your view is stuck in the 18th century.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< <DouglasDubh, your set of criteria would appear to argue against certain landmark rulings such as Brown v. Board of Education.> Really? How so? >>> I'm surprised to hear such a question from you, so I'm not sure quite how to interpret it. I'll assume that your question is genuine and answer as best and as shortly as I can: Brown v Board of Education was the landmark ruling in the 1950's that ruled that the notion of "separate but equal" was unconstitutional, especially with respect to public education. It was based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted at the end of the Civil War. It was the first Amendment to create a broad right that the federal constitution enforced upon the states (that is, state law must conform to the 14th Amendment, whereas generally speaking, the Bill of Rights before this point only limited what the federal government could do). Anyway, from the end of the Civil War until Brown, it was considered compliant for states to offer a segregated public education. The thinking was that as long as the state provided each child a free public education, doing so in a segregated manner was okay. This was certainly the view at the time the 14th Amendment was passed, and had been practiced that way by many states for some 85 years with nobody giving it much thought. In Brown, SCOTUS decided that the whole notion of "separate but equal" was an invalid concept, and that in practice, it inevitably lead to a lower quality of education for certain groups (such as blacks in the South) no matter what people claimed and no matter how hard people tried. As such, segregated schools violated the equal protection clause, and where therefore unlawful per the 14th Amendment. The reason I think this is a fair question is that if you apply the criteria listed in #1 to Brown, you come up with "b" for every question, so per #1, this would be labeled "judicial activism."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <All I can say is I only yell "Judicial Activism" when I disagree with the ruling. When I agree with it, the system is working flawlessly! > Hear hear for honesty.
