|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Judicial Activism
I thought judicial activism meant striking down laws the legislature has passed. I was under the impression that Thomas et. al. were anti-judicial activism. How to explain this:
"Indeed, according to an analysis by Paul Gewirtz, a professor at Yale Law School, and his student Chad Golder, of Supreme Court decisions between 1994 and 2005 addressing the constitutionality of sixty-four congressional provisions, Breyer voted to strike down laws twenty-eight per cent of the time—less often than any other Justice. Clarence Thomas voted to overrule Congress sixty-six per cent of the time, more than any other Justice." link How to explain? Maybe it only counts as judicial activism if you strike down a law in a certain area? e.g. economic (note: I'm not trying to be snotty) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Judicial Activism
[ QUOTE ]
I thought judicial activism meant striking down laws the legislature has passed. [/ QUOTE ] You thought wrong. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Judicial Activism
well, I know one of the things that gets conservatives upset is when a judge "invents" a right that's not in the Const.: privacy, or whatever. I thought this was what was meant by "legislating from the bench." But striking down a law passed by the legislature also has activist undertones, no?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Judicial Activism
[ QUOTE ]
I thought this was what was meant by "legislating from the bench." [/ QUOTE ] Again, you thought wrong. [ QUOTE ] But striking down a law passed by the legislature also has activist undertones, no? [/ QUOTE ] It depends. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Judicial Activism
not that wikipedia is the gospel, but:
A concise description of judicial activity which most would agree constitutes "judicial activism" is that described by Justice Byron White's dissent in Doe v. Bolton (it is of course arguable whether White here accurately describes what occurred in Doe): "I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right...and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state...statutes." The latter sounds like what is commonly meant by "legislating from the bench", no? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Judicial Activism
[ QUOTE ]
The latter sounds like what is commonly meant by "legislating from the bench", no? [/ QUOTE ] What the Florida Supreme Court tried to do in 2000 would be an example of "legislating from the bench". But as others have said, "judicial activism" is usually applied to decisions the user doesn't agree with. Striking down certain laws are part of the reason for having a judiciary. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Judicial Activism
[ QUOTE ]
not that wikipedia is the gospel [/ QUOTE ] you thought wrong |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Judicial Activism
[ QUOTE ]
I thought judicial activism meant striking down laws the legislature has passed. [/ QUOTE ] "Judicial Activism" in today's context means only "a decision I disagree with". |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Judicial Activism
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I thought judicial activism meant striking down laws the legislature has passed. [/ QUOTE ] "Judicial Activism" in today's context means only "a decision I disagree with". [/ QUOTE ] priceless |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Judicial Activism
[ QUOTE ]
"Judicial Activism" in today's context means only "a decision I disagree with". [/ QUOTE ] |
|
|