Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But certainly you can envision a case where a court would overrule a legislative decision (law) on constitutional grounds, and that would not constitute "activism" - right?>> <Sure. That's why I said that wasn't a good definition of what judicial activism is.> I bet it wouldn't stop a considerable number of conservatives from calling it exactly that, though, if the outcome was one they disagreed with.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"Some conservatives are hoping a court will take a broader view, saying something like "in a post 9/11 world, that law no longer cuts it." Which would not be strict interpretation of that law, but a re-interpretation of it.">> <This is not an example of judicial activism.> It would be if that's how they decided it: i.e. "this law no longer applies after 9/11, even though the law wasn't actually changed." <If you look at the DOJ statement on it, it would appear the Bush Administration wants to interpret FISA as consistent with the president's constitutional powers and the AUMF and Patriot Act, which would justify it's decision to avoid the FISA Court in certain circumstances as an exception clause.> That seems to be only one prong of a two-pronged strategy I see cropping up, the other prong being to argue that the law itself was out of date - without actually trying to get the law updated. (Or, I should say, more updated than it already was - it WAS ammended after 9/11 to lengthen the retroactive time from 24 to 72 hours). <The president's constitutional authority is never clearly written (defined), but courts have always recognized it. As I have written before, there is a potential constitutional crisis with FISA. As you would say, "one man's meat is another man's poison."> (CCJ): <never clearly written-----correct Woody-hence the constant ebb and flow of Presidential power from the low right after Watergate to the enhancement with Reagan and now the possible exponential augmentation that is possibly taking place presently?> I think there's something to that, CCJ, and I wouldn't be surprised to see some checks placed on the executive branch based on all this ultimately, just as it had to be reigned in after the Nixon-era abuses.
Originally Posted By cape cod joe I clearly get angry at this "Heil George" stuff here, but having said that, the usurping of power by the Executive Branch lately is getting to be a bit much so there will HAVE to be some reigning in out of necessity to keep an even balance> imho. This is all just speculation as maybe another 911 will come along?
