Judicial Activism.

[mpg]

Actually, I wanted a debate.

The question at hand is why is "conservative" judicial activism okay and "liberal" judicial activism not okay.

If you want to debate that, you have to first find someone who feels that way.

 

[webrockk]

Actually, I wanted a debate.

The question at hand is why is "conservative" judicial activism okay and "liberal" judicial activism not okay.

There's no such thing as "conservative judicial activism"..conservatives are in the business of protecting the Constitution from deluded activist leftist and RINO interpretation.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

There's no such thing as "conservative judicial activism"..conservatives are in the business of protecting the Constitution from deluded activist leftist and RINO interpretation.

Welcome to the forum webrockk! We always like to have newbies who just graduated from Pee Wee Herman Elementary School aboard.:2wave:

 

[Goobieman]

Actually, I wanted a debate.

Then you went about it the wrong way.

The question at hand is why is "conservative" judicial activism okay and "liberal" judicial activism not okay.

Or, why liberal judicial activism is OK and Conservative judicial activism is not.

 

[Goobieman]

What about Citizen's United? When attorneys representing both sides were merely arguing the simple issue as narrowly applied to the case at hand, Roberts, et. al. decided that it would go back and declare most of McCain-Feingold unconstitutional (odd, since just six years prior, they'd declared it all Constitutional). Indeed, they went as far as to re-open arguments and bring all the parties back for the specific purpose of expanding the case beyond its initial boundaries.

Is that judicial activism, too?

Did the court seek out this case because it had a decision it wanted to make and/or made its decision regarding the case and then actively create a way for that decision to fit into the Constitution?

If you can show either of these things to be true, then yes, else, no.

And Roe v. Wade is always trotted out - and I think the decision was poorly written, by the way - but, it was there because someone challenged the Constitutionality of a law banning abortion.

So? How does that mean it is not judicial activism?

 

[Morality Games]

Not at all so.
The term refers to an 'active' judiciary, one that seeks out cases that it wants to hear becaiuse it has a decision it wants to make and/or a judiciary that has a decision it wants to make and then actively comes up with a way for that decision to fit into the Constitution.

A standard which can be used to describe any ruling.

 

[Goobieman]

A standard which can be used to describe any ruling.

You COULD use that to describe any ruling, but only in a relatively few certain cases would you be correct in doing so.

Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.

And yet, Hamilton did not oppose the enumeration of the powers of Congress. Go figure.

 

[Morality Games]

You COULD use that to describe any ruling, but only in a relatively few certain cases would you be correct in doing so.

Ones that don't concur with your ideological beliefs.

And yet, Hamilton did not oppose the enumeration of the powers of Congress. Go figure.

This isn't about Hamilton.

 

[Goobieman]

Ones that don't concur with your ideological beliefs.

No, just ones that actually fit the description. Feel free to show how that description applies to any, and therefore every, case.

This isn't about Hamilton.

Your sig is. If you dont want to discuss it, you should not have added it.

 

[VanceMack]

I find it funny that the GOP, Tea Partiers, etc. seem to have a new-found fondness for their long-derided "judicial activism" when it comes to the new healthcare bill. Let's challenge it in the courts!

Agree? Disagree?

Challenging things in the courts is not judicial activism...it is why we have courts.

We have recent passage of a law that only has about 30% approval. That law is now estimated to cost over a trillion as per latest numbers. Evidence has come out that they new all along it would be much higher. Ballooning costs before it is ever even implemented. Awesome. Federal requirements mandating state coverage...MORE awesome. The states (not random special interest groups) are challenging the new law. How again is that judicial activism? Oh yeah...in..."because I desperately WANT it to be" land...

How much of that 13.5 trillion dollar debt (and counting) are your grandkids going to have to pay before you actually care more about reckless government spending than some mindless ideology?

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Challenging things in the courts is not judicial activism...it is why we have courts.

We have recent passage of a law that only has about 30% approval. That law is now estimated to cost over a trillion as per latest numbers. Evidence has come out that they new all along it would be much higher. Ballooning costs before it is ever even implemented. Awesome. Federal requirements mandating state coverage...MORE awesome. The states (not random special interest groups) are challenging the new law. How again is that judicial activism? Oh yeah...in..."because I desperately WANT it to be" land...

How much of that 13.5 trillion dollar debt (and counting) are your grandkids going to have to pay before you actually care more about reckless government spending than some mindless ideology?

Money is nothing more than a theory now days foisted by the rich for their benefit.

 

[VanceMack]

Money is nothing more than a theory now days foisted by the rich for their benefit.

One word for you...Greece

 

[LiberalAvenger]

One word for you...Greece

Two words for you: Grease drippings.

 

[VanceMack]

Two words for you: Grease drippings.

I would expect nothing more.

 

[webrockk]

Money is nothing more than a theory now days foisted by the rich for their benefit.

Try living without it....oh, maybe you have.....food stamps, Wic, Socialized heathcare?

 

[FilmFestGuy]

Did the court seek out this case because it had a decision it wanted to make and/or made its decision regarding the case and then actively create a way for that decision to fit into the Constitution?

If you can show either of these things to be true, then yes, else, no.


So? How does that mean it is not judicial activism?

Very simply put: Yes. They did seek out this case. They called the parties back to create new arguments. If that's not seeking out a case, then I don't know what is.

The lawyers for both sides in Citizens United sought a very limited ruling about the very specific case they were arguing. Instead, the Roberts court called for them to come back and argue for even more - the overturning of McCain-Feingold.

If that's not activism, then I don't know what is.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

Try living without it....oh, maybe you have.....food stamps, Wic, Socialized heathcare?

Not me, young man. I am a master tradesman.

 

[Goobieman]

Very simply put: Yes. They did seek out this case. They called the parties back to create new arguments. If that's not seeking out a case, then I don't know what is.

Theh you don't know what is.
Can you show that the court had been looking for a case such as this with the intention of overtunring a previous ruling? 'Cause that's what'seeking out a case' means.

The lawyers for both sides in Citizens United sought a very limited ruling about the very specific case they were arguing. Instead, the Roberts court called for them to come back and argue for even more - the overturning of McCain-Feingold.
If that's not activism, then I don't know what is.

Then you don't know what is.
Can you show that the court made its decision and then actively create a way for that decision to fit into the Constitution?

If you cannot show either of these things then you cannot show judicial activism.

 

[Morality Games]

No, just ones that actually fit the description. Feel free to show how that description applies to any, and therefore every, case.

Judges have limited control over which cases they preside over; generally they are assigned on jurisdiction and availability, if a district attorney or some other clerk determines there is a legitmate case. Appeals judges have even less control, since their cases are referred to them. The Supreme Court has virtually no control since they have to deal with any case that gets referred all the way down the circuits, and can't choose to ignore what is referred to them.

The protocol is designed so that 'activism' cannot occur. A judge's power is inherently passive; they receive, they do not seek.

Now, there might be activist lawyers.

Your sig is. If you dont want to discuss it, you should not have added it.

That signature has been there for a long time.

 

[mpg]

Very simply put: Yes. They did seek out this case. They called the parties back to create new arguments. If that's not seeking out a case, then I don't know what is.

The lawyers for both sides in Citizens United sought a very limited ruling about the very specific case they were arguing. Instead, the Roberts court called for them to come back and argue for even more - the overturning of McCain-Feingold.

If that's not activism, then I don't know what is.

That is activism, but intentional misinterpretation of the Constitution or laws is much more severe. Roe v Wade is an example.

 

[webrockk]

Not me, young man. I am a master tradesman.

"master tradesman" reeks of a union designation....same difference.

young man.

 

[LiberalAvenger]

"master tradesman" reeks of a union designation....same difference.

young man.

You assume to much and lack the knowledge to do so. I have never been in a union but my father was. We lived well because of it.

There are extremes on both sides of the spectrum, though. We have employers who exploit workers and we have some unions that exploit employers. We should try to seek a proper balance before making judgments.

 

[Juventus]

That's fine, but why does it only run one way? When it's a liberal law being challenged, it's about the constitution. When it's a conservative law, it's those damn activist judges imposing their will on the majority.

What I am about to propose might seem 'clumsy', but it is a new idea.

If the courts want to change laws they usually have the peoeple in mind. If the people were to vote for new leader of the people, city by city, then a normal person could be the voice of the people. I am not talking about a mayor, I am talking about a voice for the people, like an ordinary housewife who has the time, or, even better, a student.

Selecting this voice for the people would entail having an election. This person could also be retired but should be at least eighteen. They do need to know what they are talking about though. They could consult with the mayor thrice a weel or so and put thier questions to them in the office they reside in. This doesn't even have to be official! Heck they could even just send them letters about what they want done or something, like a signed document with people that support them in their cause.

Forget about going door to door, they could just use cell phones, which nearly everyone has, to relay information to each other. Then they could collect all the messages into an email and then send them off to the mayor, or, let's make this national, the premier or something.

This will make them aware of the cause the people want dealt with first. This cause could be dealt with swiftly by a... oh... my... a debate forum? Maybe if they let the debate forum handle it and they surveyed the posts to see if they have any new ideas which the moderators could highlight or something, they would be able to deal with it swiftly. The people that read it know the laws, and that is all they need to know, yes?

Ok so we got our 'operating system', now we need issues!

 

[American]

What I am about to propose might seem 'clumsy', but it is a new idea.

If the courts want to change laws they usually have the peoeple in mind. If the people were to vote for new leader of the people, city by city, then a normal person could be the voice of the people. I am not talking about a mayor, I am talking about a voice for the people, like an ordinary housewife who has the time, or, even better, a student.

Selecting this voice for the people would entail having an election. This person could also be retired but should be at least eighteen. They do need to know what they are talking about though. They could consult with the mayor thrice a weel or so and put thier questions to them in the office they reside in. This doesn't even have to be official! Heck they could even just send them letters about what they want done or something, like a signed document with people that support them in their cause.

Forget about going door to door, they could just use cell phones, which nearly everyone has, to relay information to each other. Then they could collect all the messages into an email and then send them off to the mayor, or, let's make this national, the premier or something.

This will make them aware of the cause the people want dealt with first. This cause could be dealt with swiftly by a... oh... my... a debate forum? Maybe if they let the debate forum handle it and they surveyed the posts to see if they have any new ideas which the moderators could highlight or something, they would be able to deal with it swiftly. The people that read it know the laws, and that is all they need to know, yes?

Ok so we got our 'operating system', now we need issues!

WTF???? :shock:

 

[Redress]

Try living without it....oh, maybe you have.....food stamps, Wic, Socialized heathcare?

Moderator's Warning:

Please talk about the topic and don't speculate about the posters