Judicial Activism

**MonkeyFoo** · 10-15-2005, 05:44 PM

When a judge makes an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution based not on pure logic, but also on the spirit of the times and the needs of the nation, this is known as "judicial activism."

All throughout the history of our judicial system, we have had cases of judicial activism. These cases were very controversial at the times they were made by the Supreme Court, because they created or revoked rights. Some examples are those of the Dred Scott case, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of ed., etc.

Here are some arguments for each side of the debate to get you all started:

- JA is not necessary because the constitution protects our rights as it is. After all, rights are defined by the constitution, so keeping it the same won't violate those rights. We may want a right, but we're really just being asked if you need JA to protect the rights, as in ones we already have, and those are protected by previous judicial rulings and legislation. Furthermore, JA dangerously affords the Judicial branch too much power, because it goes unchecked.

- JA is very necessary to protect all our rights, natural and civil, because the constitution was written with loopholes and biases, and in order to ensure our rights, we must keep the constitution flexible. JA is the only way to achieve this flexibility. Without decisions based on JA, slavery would, for example, still be legal. Women wouldn't be able to vote, either. Also, as we move into the 21st century, we are exposed to new modes of rights violation, such as through computers, and we need to make some decisions independently of the constitution for these, because new problems call for new solutions.

I personally believe that JA is necessary to protect rights, but as far as which side you vote for based on the question posed in the poll, it depends on how you define "rights", and which rights we are talking about here.

Deliberate.

GuidoHunter · 10-15-2005, 11:30 PM

Strict constructionism, FTW.

It is not up to the Supreme Court to determine if abortion is legal. Abortion is NOT a constitutionally protected right, and power to allow or disallow it is therefore turned over to Congress (Federal or State). Judicial activism is simply justices skewing an interpretation of the Constitution to include anything they really want it to include (loose interpretation). This cheapens the Supreme Law of our Land, which is very forward and clear with its words.

And Monkey, some of your statements are just wrong. Judicial activism has nothing to do with slavery or women's suffrage. Constitutional amendments protected those rights, which are voted on by states, not judges.

Our Constitution has stood for over two hundred years with minimal changes. Soon after its adoption the Bill of Rights was added to list basic human rights that were necessary to have in the constitution. Ever since then, though, there's been no need to add to that list of rights, nor will there be, I'm sure, just because we have computers now. The Constitution delegates power to the Congresses because it has faith that our elected representatives will put good laws in place.

They do, for the most part, so the activist judges just want to circumvent these laws and rule according to their own agendas.

Down with Judicial Activism.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

**MonkeyFoo** · 10-16-2005, 01:13 PM

Yay, I got a post!

View Poll Results: Is judicial activism necessary to protect the rights of American citizens?
Yes	2	66.67%
No	1	33.33%
Voters: 3. You may not vote on this poll

10-15-2005, 05:44 PM	#1
MonkeyFoo FFR Veteran Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Northeasterly Age: 34 Posts: 397	Judicial Activism When a judge makes an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution based not on pure logic, but also on the spirit of the times and the needs of the nation, this is known as "judicial activism." All throughout the history of our judicial system, we have had cases of judicial activism. These cases were very controversial at the times they were made by the Supreme Court, because they created or revoked rights. Some examples are those of the Dred Scott case, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of ed., etc. Here are some arguments for each side of the debate to get you all started: - JA is not necessary because the constitution protects our rights as it is. After all, rights are defined by the constitution, so keeping it the same won't violate those rights. We may want a right, but we're really just being asked if you need JA to protect the rights, as in ones we already have, and those are protected by previous judicial rulings and legislation. Furthermore, JA dangerously affords the Judicial branch too much power, because it goes unchecked. - JA is very necessary to protect all our rights, natural and civil, because the constitution was written with loopholes and biases, and in order to ensure our rights, we must keep the constitution flexible. JA is the only way to achieve this flexibility. Without decisions based on JA, slavery would, for example, still be legal. Women wouldn't be able to vote, either. Also, as we move into the 21st century, we are exposed to new modes of rights violation, such as through computers, and we need to make some decisions independently of the constitution for these, because new problems call for new solutions. I personally believe that JA is necessary to protect rights, but as far as which side you vote for based on the question posed in the poll, it depends on how you define "rights", and which rights we are talking about here. Deliberate. __________________ How has it been 15 years

10-16-2005, 01:13 PM	#3
MonkeyFoo FFR Veteran Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Northeasterly Age: 34 Posts: 397	RE: Judicial Activism Yay, I got a post! __________________ How has it been 15 years

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)