sigh
OK - is there ANY case in the past 100 years that is fairly described as “judicial activism?” Does “judicial activism” exist?
I don’t see how that would be relevant. You have made the claim, time and time again that this case is one of judical activism. How about defending that claim, hmmm?
Bush v Gore? :::d&r:::
In order to do that, we must first agree on what “judicial activism” means. In order to understand what you believe it means, I’m asking you for examples.
I don’t really believe it exists, and you are the one who does. However, let me look at wiki
Well, Scott, it’s going to be a short debate. You don’t agree that judicial activism exists, so it’s not going to help if I show that the Goodridge possess any particular characteristics.
In other words, if we agree that judicial activism is X, Y, and Z, then I would have to show that the Goodridge case included X, Y, and Z.
Since you don’t agree that there is any such thing as judicial activism, naturally you don’t agree that Goodridge is an example of the species.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Ahem Did you read my quote? It said, “Broadly speaking, judicial activism is the act of replacing an impartial interpretation of existing law with the judge’s personal feelings about what the law should be.”
According to wiki, X, Y, and Z appear to be letters of some sort:
So you now enorse this as what judicial activism is?
Not really, but it is close enough for government work, as they say.
Scott, if you want to try to gain some respect around here, this is really not the way to do it.
I suggest you either put in the work to actually present an argument, or ask that this thread be closed.
If you’re going to open a thread in the pit to prevent hijacking, you still need to kick off the thread with an argument.
This is the One Cite. Forwarded by the Dark Lord Scott to the flames of BBQ Pit.
…
Scott needs only this cite to cover all debates of a second darkness. He is seeking it; seeking it, all his thought is bent on it. The Cite yearns, above all, to return to the posts of its master. They are one, the Cite and the Dark Lord…
Alright you bastid, I just had water shoot out my nose. Ice cold water. I hope that joke was worth it, cuz now my ninja ferret death squad has your number!
Well, then what I said above stands, doesn’t it. If you don’t agree with ANY definition of judicial activism, it’s impossible for me to argue a particular case is judicial activism: I have no idea what aspects of the case to bring to your attention to show judicial activism.
So we’re left with what I said above: Since you don’t agree that there is any such thing as judicial activism, naturally you don’t agree that Goodridge is an example of the species.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
Whaddaya know, Scott wins again!
And that makes the score so far:
Scott Plaid - 4,523
Everyone Else on The SDMB - 0
He’s a myth and a legend.
Just out of curiosity, what’s the deal with “judicial activism”, anyway? It was my impression the legislatures could slap down any bit of doggerel they wanted on paper if they feel a majority of the electorate will be placated, or more specifically, the fraction of the electorate that actually bothers to vote. The legislators can hold all the committee hearings and make all the speeches they like, but isn’t it a judge who ultimately has to look a citizen in the eye and try to explain to them that though the citzen’s action didn’t hurt anyone, or didn’t hurt anyone as badly as a bunch of shrieking lawmakers claim it did, that citizen will have to face major penalties or barricades or some other out-of-proportion obstacle? It’s the judges who are a democracy’s first line of defense against legislative stupidity when they say “this mangled trainwreck of a commitee-spawned law might satisfy some brain-dead trolls in the capital and their brain-dead supporters, but it’s wrong and I won’t support it.”
Or am I off base?
Depends on your point of view.
What, for example, is democracy’s first line of defense against stupid judges?
As in “this convoluted trainwreck of a judicial decision might satisfy some stunningly out-of-touch fat heads in black robes and their elitist clerks, but it is based on nothing more than my hallucinations of what is good for the Great Unwashed and I won’t support it.”
If you see what I mean.
Regards,
Shodan
I thought the executive branch was the first check against legislative stupidity. Having to sign off on or veto the laws passed by the legislature – the president, at the national level, deciding on the laws passed by U.S. Congress… or a governor, at the level of a state legislature… and so on.
Fuckety fuck fuck! You keep repeating that ad nauseum when I’ve proved you wrong over and over.