• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What Do We Do About Activist Judges?

shuamort said:
Ahh Scalia, who said in Bush V. Gore that allowing the recount to proceed would harm Bush "by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election."

If we're going to talk about Judicial Activism, Bush V. Gore was definitely a wonderful example of the Supreme Court ignoring Florida's state laws and Florida's Supreme Court decision and ruling it unconstitutional. In other words, BvG was judicial activism at its finest and I don't remember hearing Republicans complaining about "justices out of control".

Actually, it was Florida's Supreme Court who ignored Florida's state laws, and the Supreme Court who remedied this error. I think you're right that that case was an example of judicial activism. If it had been decided properly, it would have been 9-0 in favor of ending the recounts.
 
RightatNYU said:
Actually, it was Florida's Supreme Court who ignored Florida's state laws, and the Supreme Court who remedied this error. I think you're right that that case was an example of judicial activism. If it had been decided properly, it would have been 9-0 in favor of ending the recounts.
Nope, the Florida Supreme Court went by the laws of Florida. There was no activism there. The US Supreme Court determined that the laws set-up in FL were unconstitutional per the EPC of the 14th Amendment.

I accept the SCOTUS's decisions there as with other decisions. But SCOTUS's decision still falls under this wacky umbrella of "activist judges".
 
shuamort said:
Nope, the Florida Supreme Court went by the laws of Florida. There was no activism there. The US Supreme Court determined that the laws set-up in FL were unconstitutional per the EPC of the 14th Amendment.

I accept the SCOTUS's decisions there as with other decisions. But SCOTUS's decision still falls under this wacky umbrella of "activist judges".
Being and idiot, I don't get EPC?

But overall I see this as a call of activism on both sides. But it's only activism when the call doesn't go your way.

I think Shays, R-Conn. said it best when he recently stated, regarding Terri Schiavo, he said: “My party is demonstrating that they are for States rights unless they don’t like what the State’s are doing”

Not exactly a direct comparison. But I think he hit the nail on the head. Both parties are all for the courts- when the courts decisions are going their way. If not it’s these da*m activist judges
 
Pacridge said:
Being and idiot, I don't get EPC?
Sorry, I read so many articles that go into shorthand I forget I do it too. EPC-Equal Protection Clause (of the 14th Amendment).
 
Pacridge said:
Being and idiot, I don't get EPC?

But overall I see this as a call of activism on both sides. But it's only activism when the call doesn't go your way.

I think Shays, R-Conn. said it best when he recently stated, regarding Terri Schiavo, he said: “My party is demonstrating that they are for States rights unless they don’t like what the State’s are doing”

Not exactly a direct comparison. But I think he hit the nail on the head. Both parties are all for the courts- when the courts decisions are going their way. If not it’s these da*m activist judges

You're exactly right that there have been several times lately when Republicans have subverted their own message of state's rights to get what they want.

Opposition to state marijuana laws, FMA, Schiavo, etc. It's getting harder and harder to define a party's line nowadays.

A side effect of the president saying he disagrees with the official party line, I guess.
 
John Conyers' statement today. This is really depressing:

The War on Judges
Irresponsible Rhetoric Can Lead to Tragic Results



During the protracted coverage and debate of the Schiavo matter, I was struck by the disrespectful and reckless language being used against judges. One by one, my Republican colleagues took the House floor to attack judges as "unconscionable," lacking "human compassion," needing to be held in "contempt," and having "answering to do." I remember thinking that such dehumanizing rhetoric is especially dangerous in these times towards anyone, let alone judges.

Outside the halls of Congress, words flew even more recklessly and the House Majority Leader Tom DeLay called the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube an "act of medical terrorism." The Reverend Pat Robertson called it "judicial murder."

I remember thinking about Judge Rowland Barnes of Georgia, who less than a month ago, was shot to death by an angry litigant in his courtroom, along with two other court employees. I remember thinking that irresponsible words can lead to tragic results. I thought of Judge Joan Lefkow, whose husband and mother are thought to have been murdered by an aggrieved litigant. Since then, I have been trying to think of the most appropriate forum to gently call this to my colleagues' attention, and to remind them that -- no matter how strong our feelings about individual decisions and cases, we need to be cognizant of the influence we may have -- especially on those that may be disturbed, and we always need to know that -- as elected officials -- our words have consequences.

That was to be a subtle message. It is unfortunate that today my message must be less subtle because things are very quickly spinning out of control.

First, the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay, made the outrageous statement, and apparent threat, that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." When given repeated opportunities to disavow the interpretation of his comments as a threat or incitement to violence, DeLay has repeatedly declined to do so.

Tonight, my staff showed me a quote from Senator John Cornyn (found on Americablog) that speaks for itself: "And finally, I – I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news. And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage in violence. Certainly without any justification but a concern that I have that I wanted to share."

This apparent effort to rationalize violence against judges is deplorable. On its face, while it contains doubletalk that simultaneously offers a justification for such violence and then claims not to, the fundamental core of the statement seems to be that judges have somehow brought this violence on themselves. This also carries an implicit threat: that if judges do not do what the far right wants them to do (thus becoming the "judicial activists" the far right claims to deplore), the violence may well continue.

If this is what Senator Cornyn meant to say, it is outrageous, irresponsible and unbecoming of our leaders. To be sure, I have disagreed with many, many court rulings. (For example, Bush v. Gore may well be the single greatest example of judicial activism we have seen in our lifetime.) But there is no excuse, no excuse, for a Member of Congress to take our discourse to this ugly and dangerous extreme.

My message is not subtle today. It is simple. To my Republican colleagues: you are playing with fire, you are playing with lives, and you must stop.

Senator Cornyn and Congressman DeLay should immediately retract these ill considered statements.
 
shuamort said:
Nope, the Florida Supreme Court went by the laws of Florida. There was no activism there. The US Supreme Court determined that the laws set-up in FL were unconstitutional per the EPC of the 14th Amendment.

I accept the SCOTUS's decisions there as with other decisions. But SCOTUS's decision still falls under this wacky umbrella of "activist judges".
The Florida legislature is the only body that has the authority to re-write Florida law.

The Supreme Court simply directed The Florida Court to apply the Florida aw as written by the Florida legislature.
 
shuamort said:
John Conyers' statement today. This is really depressing:

The War on Judges
Irresponsible Rhetoric Can Lead to Tragic Results



During the protracted coverage and debate of the Schiavo matter, I was struck by the disrespectful and reckless language being used against judges. One by one, my Republican colleagues took the House floor to attack judges as "unconscionable," lacking "human compassion," needing to be held in "contempt," and having "answering to do." I remember thinking that such dehumanizing rhetoric is especially dangerous in these times towards anyone, let alone judges.

Outside the halls of Congress, words flew even more recklessly and the House Majority Leader Tom DeLay called the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube an "act of medical terrorism." The Reverend Pat Robertson called it "judicial murder."

I remember thinking about Judge Rowland Barnes of Georgia, who less than a month ago, was shot to death by an angry litigant in his courtroom, along with two other court employees. I remember thinking that irresponsible words can lead to tragic results. I thought of Judge Joan Lefkow, whose husband and mother are thought to have been murdered by an aggrieved litigant. Since then, I have been trying to think of the most appropriate forum to gently call this to my colleagues' attention, and to remind them that -- no matter how strong our feelings about individual decisions and cases, we need to be cognizant of the influence we may have -- especially on those that may be disturbed, and we always need to know that -- as elected officials -- our words have consequences.

That was to be a subtle message. It is unfortunate that today my message must be less subtle because things are very quickly spinning out of control.

First, the Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Tom DeLay, made the outrageous statement, and apparent threat, that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior." When given repeated opportunities to disavow the interpretation of his comments as a threat or incitement to violence, DeLay has repeatedly declined to do so.

Tonight, my staff showed me a quote from Senator John Cornyn (found on Americablog) that speaks for itself: "And finally, I – I don't know if there is a cause-and-effect connection but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country. Certainly nothing new, but we seem to have run through a spate of courthouse violence recently that's been on the news. And I wonder whether there may be some connection between the perception in some quarters on some occasions where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to the public, that it builds up and builds up and builds up to the point where some people engage in -- engage in violence. Certainly without any justification but a concern that I have that I wanted to share."

This apparent effort to rationalize violence against judges is deplorable. On its face, while it contains doubletalk that simultaneously offers a justification for such violence and then claims not to, the fundamental core of the statement seems to be that judges have somehow brought this violence on themselves. This also carries an implicit threat: that if judges do not do what the far right wants them to do (thus becoming the "judicial activists" the far right claims to deplore), the violence may well continue.

If this is what Senator Cornyn meant to say, it is outrageous, irresponsible and unbecoming of our leaders. To be sure, I have disagreed with many, many court rulings. (For example, Bush v. Gore may well be the single greatest example of judicial activism we have seen in our lifetime.) But there is no excuse, no excuse, for a Member of Congress to take our discourse to this ugly and dangerous extreme.

My message is not subtle today. It is simple. To my Republican colleagues: you are playing with fire, you are playing with lives, and you must stop.

Senator Cornyn and Congressman DeLay should immediately retract these ill considered statements.

The attempt to use Judge Barnes's situation to prove a point is pathetic. He wasn't killed because someone disagreed with a controversial decision he made, or because he deeply offended the killer. He was killed because some asshole didn't want to go to the jail that he deserved. He wasn't sought out and murdered like the family of Judge Lefkow, he was just killed during an escape attempt.

I agree that Delay should clarify his statements to explain that he wasn't endorsing violence. However, I do think that this recent spate of activist judges (not in the Schiavo case, necessarily) does require action.
 
Fantasea said:
The Florida legislature is the only body that has the authority to re-write Florida law.

The Supreme Court simply directed The Florida Court to apply the Florida aw as written by the Florida legislature.
Wrong, Florida Law would have had a recount to make sure that the ballots were all counted the same way, that's what the Florida Supreme Court ordered, which was following the law. SCOTUS ruled against that in the interest of getting it over with (as is evident in Scalia's comment I posted).
 
shuamort said:
Originally Posted by Fantasea
The Florida legislature is the only body that has the authority to re-write Florida law.

The Supreme Court simply directed The Florida Court to apply the Florida aw as written by the Florida legislature.
Wrong, Florida Law would have had a recount to make sure that the ballots were all counted the same way, that's what the Florida Supreme Court ordered, which was following the law. SCOTUS ruled against that in the interest of getting it over with (as is evident in Scalia's comment I posted).
As I recall, the Florida Legislature had the same complaint.
 
Fantasea said:
13th Justice said:
If what you say is true, we would never see all of the many, many advocacy groups in action, would we?

Advocacy groups are not set up for one individual case. They usually are establsihed to achieve broad public policy goals that impact either a designated group of people or all of the American people. But to say that the plaintiff in Roe v. Wade should go out and start a public interest group in order to procure an abortion is just simplistic stupidity on behalf of an otherwise brilliant legal mind.
You are mistaken. I had the opportunity to watch a televised discussion between Justice Scalia and Justice Breyer. Justice Scalia spoke at length of the evils wrought by judges who do exactly as you describe. He said that the role of a judge is solely to apply the law at hand to the case at hand and not to invent new meanings.

But my point was - there is no legislation that addresses all of the infinite number of factual scenarios that could arise before the judiciary. Let's say we have a case concerning union organizing in the workplace. There is no legislative history where the founders expoused their views of whether free speech includes union organizing because there were no unions at the time the founders deliberated upon the constitution. So the judge is left in legal limbo. The judge will then have to distill the principles of free speech to see how the founders would have ruled on the specific issue of union organizing had they been confronted with that issue. This distillation and application of underlying principles is what conservatives call judicial activism. But in reality this process is a much more productive exercise than going on some witch hunt to try to find relevant language in some legislative transcript about an issue that did not even exist when the law was written. Therefore looking through the congressional transcripts in these cases is simply a useless waste of time.

What you are seeking is known by the legal term, "ex post facto"; a law which is passed 'after the fact'. One cannot sue on the basis of a law that one thinks should exist, but, in fact, does not. No, ex post facto is making an act criminal that was not criminal when the act was committed. Thats not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about judges using established policy or principles and applying them to specific cases. This is called COMMON LAW not ex post facto. Common Law is judge made law that tries to make a reasonable estimation of how the legislature would rule on a specific case. For instance, there is nothing in the constitution that discusses the "executive privilege" but judges reasoned that if the president is authorized to receive confidential information then there must be a concommitant right to keep this information concealed. So the courts created this body of law based on that reasoning. Some people would call this exercise "judicial reasoning" but those who oppose the judges decisions call it "judicial activism".

That equates to trying to buy fire insurance after one's house has burned down.The way it works is this. Activist attorneys, with an agenda to push, seek out courts in which like-minded judges sit, there is a complex web of rules that determine jurisdiction, I seriously doubt attorneys can single-handedly determine jurisdiction manipulate the calendar so as to 'catch' the judge they want, pick the statute that they deem appropriate, and then point out to the judge exactly where the clauses which would support their claim are missing and explain to the judge that the legislators really intended to include the missing language. But there are two lawyers in each case and I'm sure the other side will be fighting vigorously against the chicanery you're alleging. What you must realize is that law is an adversarial process and no single lawyer can manipulate as many levers of that process as you suggest. I venture that what you claim to be surprise is, in reality, disappointment that so learned a jurist is, philosophically speaking, not on your side. No as I said, I'm actually surprised. Scalia is trying to play naive in order to convince laypeople that there is something highly irregular going on in the judiciary and therefore it needs to be overhauled. He only takes this position with cases he disagrees with.

WELCOME ABOARD. It's always nice to have a new sparring partner.

Thanks for the warm welcome. :lol:
 
Thanks

I just wanted to thank all of you for welcoming me with such open arms. I look forward to communicating and learning from all of you. :lol:
 
Interesting:

On Friday, Vice President D ick Cheney told the New York Post he would have problems with punishing judges for their legal rulings. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he thinks the judiciary is fair and independent.
 
Re: Thanks

13th Justice said:
I just wanted to thank all of you for welcoming me with such open arms. I look forward to communicating and learning from all of you. :lol:

You're so very welcome, now get the fu...oops! Sorry- bad coffee this morning.
 
shuamort said:
Interesting:

On Friday, Vice President D ick Cheney told the New York Post he would have problems with punishing judges for their legal rulings. On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said he thinks the judiciary is fair and independent.

I think that was wise on their parts.

I still say both parties, whenever they don't get their way with the court, scream judicial activism.
 
Pacridge said:
I think that was wise on their parts.

I still say both parties, whenever they don't get their way with the court, scream judicial activism.

Exactly and what people have been hearing since the republican shift is liberal activist judges. People have to realize that there are so-called activist judges on both sides, conservatives and liberals. When Tom delay says that he wants to punish those on the judiciary i laugh for two main reasons: number one-the backlash will loose him major amounts of seats in the midterm elections unless they :spin: that much better, and number two-he is the most unethical person in washington in quite a long time and he starts preaching how those evil men did not help terri and how they should be impeached...well, i guess morality is only skin deep.
 
Below is a brief description of Scotus appointments. Bork was destroyed with false allegations, Kennedy was ok because he must lean to the left enough to pass the test. I don’t recall Souter, but it was mid term before he was confirmed, so it must have been a long fight. Thomas was almost destroyed by false allegations. Notice the two liberal Judges Clinton nominated. When liberals have a chance to pack the court, that seems to be ok.

Apr 28, 4:12 PM (ET)

By The Associated Press
Supreme Court justices traditionally have announced their retirements at the end of the term in late June. That usually leaves enough time for successors to join the court for its new term in October.
But two of the last four justices to retire did so earlier. Their timing may have been influenced by what occurred after Justice Lewis Powell retired in 1987.
The departure of the moderate Powell worried liberals, who feared President Reagan would choose a strong conservative who would shift the court sharply to the right. After Reagan did just that, nominating Robert Bork, there was a bitter confirmation fight. Senate Democrats prevailed, killing the nomination on a 58-42 vote.
Reagan's second nominee, Douglas Ginsburg, withdrew his bid amid disclosures that he had smoked marijuana. So Reagan tapped Anthony Kennedy, conservative but moderate, and he won approval, though the protracted battle left the court with only eight justices until midway through the 1987-88 term.
Since Powell, there have been four Supreme Court retirements:
_William Brennan made his announcement in July 1990 after suffering a stroke. President George H.W. Bush picked little-known David H. Souter, who was confirmed and sworn in as his replacement at the start of the October term.
_Thurgood Marshall, the first black justice, stepped down in June 1991 amid health problems. Bush picked Clarence Thomas. Thomas did not join the court until late October, after the term's start, due to a lengthy confirmation battle following allegations of sexual harassment.
_Byron White broke from tradition and announced his retirement in March 1993. President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal who was sworn in before the start of the term in August.
_Harry Blackmun, the liberal author of the Roe v. Wade abortion opinion, also announced his departure in April 1994. Clinton nominated moderate-liberal Stephen Breyer, who joined the court that August.

Source
 
Fantasea said:
The Florida legislature is the only body that has the authority to re-write Florida law.

The Supreme Court simply directed The Florida Court to apply the Florida aw as written by the Florida legislature.

The logical extension of "The Florida legislature is the only body that has the authority to re-write Florida law" is that the Florida Supreme Court is the only Judicial body that has the authority to interpret Florida law. The U.S. Supreme Court can invalidate Florida law on U.S. Constitutional grounds, but cannot interpret it.

Therefore, if the Supreme Court had claimed they were merely directing the Florida Court to apply Florida Law as written by the the Florida legislature, they would have been completely out of line, infringing on the state's right to interpret its own laws. The convoluted ruling, as it stood, really should have invalidated Florida law on the basis of Equal Protection.
 
The logical extension of "The Florida legislature is the only body that has the authority to re-write Florida law" is that the Florida Supreme Court is the only Judicial body that has the authority to interpret Florida law. The U.S. Supreme Court can invalidate Florida law on U.S. Constitutional grounds, but cannot interpret it.
Where have you been for the last 30 years? The courts do it all the time. Note the title of the thread Activist Judges

Therefore, if the Supreme Court had claimed they were merely directing the Florida Court to apply Florida Law as written by the the Florida legislature, they would have been completely out of line, infringing on the state's right to interpret its own laws. The convoluted ruling, as it stood, really should have invalidated Florida law on the basis of Equal Protection.
The Florida Supreme Court had the Activist Judges in this case. The Florida Supreme Court did not comply with Florida law and the US Supreme Court ruled that they had to do so. The violator was the Florida SC not the US SC.
 
Squawker said:
Where have you been for the last 30 years? The courts do it all the time. Note the title of the thread Activist Judges

Federal courts do what all the time? Interpret state laws? No they don't. The federal courts review state laws for compliance with federal law and constitutionality. They do not interpret state laws.

Squawker said:
The Florida Supreme Court had the Activist Judges in this case. The Florida Supreme Court did not comply with Florida law and the US Supreme Court ruled that they had to do so. The violator was the Florida SC not the US SC.

It may (or may not) very well be that the Florida Supreme court justices are activist. But it is certain that the Supreme Court Justices were "activist" with regard to this case.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not nullify the decision of the Florida Supreme Court based directly on their interpretation of Florida law. The U.S. Supreme Court nullified the Florida ruling based on the idea that Florida law made it so that Florida voters were not being treated equally, as demanded by the 14th Amendment, a Federal law. If the Supreme Court felt that the Florida Supreme Court misinterpreted Florida law, they believed that such a misinterpretation was irrelevant under federal jurisdiction, which is why they applied Federal law in their ruling.

Thus, the U.S. Supreme Court did not interpret Florida Law, it interpreted Federal Law as having precedence over whatever the Florida law might be, specifically, the highest Federal law, the Constitution.

Now, the application of the 14th amendment in such a manner is a real stretch. At least if we define "stretch" in the usual way that people who accuse judges of activism define it. The applicable language of the amendment is:

"no state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Just as the nouveau strict constructionists interpret "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" in its 'plain language' meaning, we should force them to do the same with the 14th amendment.

What should we do about activist judges? Keep politics out of the judiciary as much as possible by allowing only moderate, objective judges pass the Senate advise and consent step of the confirmation process. The judiciary should remain and be restored to its valuable place in our government of being a bulwark against extremism from both parties.
 
Yes, but we're all forgetting the practice of common law, which is an accepted and practiced form of law in the United States. Common law is law based on precedent, and thus the judges are allowed to interpret what the law was supposed to mean (including, one of their actual duties is interpretting what they felt that the legislators of the law were trying to do with it), and also consider past rulings on the case all into their judgement. Thus, even if the case seems black and white, and simple to you, the fact is legally it's not so simple, there are all sorts of things that need to be taken into consideration. That's why they're judges, and we're not. And it's not called activism, it's called BEING A JUDGE!
 
galenrox said:
... the judges are allowed to interpret what the law was supposed to mean (including, one of their actual duties is interpretting what they felt that the legislators of the law were trying to do with it), and also consider past rulings on the case all into their judgement. ...

Yes, the Florida Supreme Court is allowed to interpret what Florida law is supposed to mean, but not the U.S. Supreme Court.

But, you bring up and interesting point... Common Law works exactly as you have stated. So, when a judge deviates from established precedent, that judge is being activist. In a sense, it doesn't matter if the original precedent was 'incorrect'. Some will say that we should do away with common law, but that would be a disastrous notion.

Another difficulty with originalist interpretation of the Constitution is that its adherents want the judge to mystically channel "The Founders" intent. A difficult endeavor that begs for bias to be introduced into one's perception of the Founders, such as Scalia's selective channelling of the Founders. Yet, who exactly are "The Founders" anyway? Does it matter that "The Founders" are not the ones who established the force of The Constitution. It was the voters in each state that ratified the document. Should their understanding of it be the document's interpretation? How do we objectively determine original meaning and intent, in any event?

:idea: Perhaps what we should do about "Activism" is take a few years to honestly debate what mode we would really like our Constitutional interpretation to take... We could do this in the context of a debate about a new Amendment, which would establish under what philosophy of interpretation we will have for our Constitution. All modes of interpretation lead to activism of one type or another, but at least we'd establish which activism we shall endure.
 
Dezaad said:
Yes, the Florida Supreme Court is allowed to interpret what Florida law is supposed to mean, but not the U.S. Supreme Court.
Wrong. The Supreme court has the right to review any state's law considering that Federal Law trumps state law.
But, you bring up and interesting point... Common Law works exactly as you have stated. So, when a judge deviates from established precedent, that judge is being activist. In a sense, it doesn't matter if the original precedent was 'incorrect'. Some will say that we should do away with common law, but that would be a disastrous notion.
Not really, they are deviating from the precedent, but there are usually reasons for this. See, almost every single case is different and with those differences are born different decisions because of what happened in the case. That can most clearly be seen in these past two rulings about the Ten Commandmetns.
Another difficulty with originalist interpretation of the Constitution is that its adherents want the judge to mystically channel "The Founders" intent. A difficult endeavor that begs for bias to be introduced into one's perception of the Founders, such as Scalia's selective channelling of the Founders. Yet, who exactly are "The Founders" anyway? Does it matter that "The Founders" are not the ones who established the force of The Constitution. It was the voters in each state that ratified the document. Should their understanding of it be the document's interpretation? How do we objectively determine original meaning and intent, in any event?
There are a few justices on the Supreme Court who love to do this, and sometimes, they are wrong. Sometimes, they are right, but we don't know what the founders wanted. Completely agree. One solution I guess is to go by historical documents instead of trying to get in their minds...
:idea: Perhaps what we should do about "Activism" is take a few years to honestly debate what mode we would really like our Constitutional interpretation to take... We could do this in the context of a debate about a new Amendment, which would establish under what philosophy of interpretation we will have for our Constitution. All modes of interpretation lead to activism of one type or another, but at least we'd establish which activism we shall endure.
I would love for that to happen, honestly, but it won't. The country will always be divided this way-one wants benefits, one wants strictness (that sounded bad didn't it...). Alright, one side wants to use the constitution to add more while the other doesn't want to add more, that is the essence of what is happening right now as well. I don't think that will ever change, even with conversation.
 
ShamMol said:
Wrong. The Supreme court has the right to review any state's law considering that Federal Law trumps state law.
Not really, they are deviating from the precedent, but there are usually reasons for this. See, almost every single case is different and with those differences are born different decisions because of what happened in the case. That can most clearly be seen in these past two rulings about the Ten Commandmetns.
There are a few justices on the Supreme Court who love to do this, and sometimes, they are wrong. Sometimes, they are right, but we don't know what the founders wanted. Completely agree. One solution I guess is to go by historical documents instead of trying to get in their minds...
I would love for that to happen, honestly, but it won't. The country will always be divided this way-one wants benefits, one wants strictness (that sounded bad didn't it...). Alright, one side wants to use the constitution to add more while the other doesn't want to add more, that is the essence of what is happening right now as well. I don't think that will ever change, even with conversation.
Federal law only trumps state law under certain circumstances, according to the constitution. Sometimes their interpretation will be wrong, but we'll never know, cause all of the founding fathers are dead, so they look at other things going on at the time that may lead them to the context and intent of the law.
A system of strictly common law is dangerous, but we have a complex system of common law, legislated law, and other types of law, and it just strikes me as a tad odd that people who haven't studied law, haven't gone to law school, are saying that people who have gone to law school and excelled are practicing law.
Plus all of this ragging on activist judges makes me nervous, because I knew Michael Lefkow my whole life, and I believe a large part of the reason people turn on judges violently is because we are no longer reminded that most judges know more about law than the politicians who don't like their decisions, and a lot more than most of the public that criticizes them. I'm not asking criticism to stop, but we can't forget that they know more than we do about these things.
 
galenrox said:
Federal law only trumps state law under certain circumstances, according to the constitution. Sometimes their interpretation will be wrong, but we'll never know, cause all of the founding fathers are dead, so they look at other things going on at the time that may lead them to the context and intent of the law.
Here it is. It says that all states have to abide by Federal laws. We may be talking symantics here.

From Article VI:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be Supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
A system of strictly common law is dangerous, but we have a complex system of common law, legislated law, and other types of law, and it just strikes me as a tad odd that people who haven't studied law, haven't gone to law school, are saying that people who have gone to law school and excelled are practicing law.
Well, I know a tad about the legal system considering my entire family is in it. I train law school students actually in welfare management (my speciality in law) and work for a law firm where I have to do legal research. So I know a tad about it. We do have a lot of law and that is why we have judges to interpret all the law and come up with the appropriate sentence.
Plus all of this ragging on activist judges makes me nervous, because I knew Michael Lefkow my whole life, and I believe a large part of the reason people turn on judges violently is because we are no longer reminded that most judges know more about law than the politicians who don't like their decisions, and a lot more than most of the public that criticizes them. I'm not asking criticism to stop, but we can't forget that they know more than we do about these things.
Trust me, I hate the ranting as I have a family member who is a Federal judge. I think it is a dangerous precedent, and even the person who lost her family basically said that the politicians were partly to blame for creating a society that hates judges through rhetoric.
 
Back
Top Bottom