Restraint.
Quote from: SecondClass on November 12, 2014, 07:32:05 PMRestraint.Why?
Quote from: IcyWind on November 12, 2014, 07:32:15 PMQuote from: SecondClass on November 12, 2014, 07:32:05 PMRestraint.Why?Because the Supreme Court's role isn't to champion progressiveness, it's to uphold current laws and protect the Constitution. If something is obviously unconstitutional or vastly outdated, then justices have the obligation to do something about it, sure. But it's the legislative branch's job to progress the country and try to push unique ideals, not the judicial's.
Isn't "judicial activism" just a term invented by conservatives for when the court tells them they're wrong?
Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own visions regarding the needs of contemporary society. Judicial activism believes that judges assume a role as independent policy makers or independent "trustees" on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws. The concept of judicial activism is the polar opposite of judicial restraint.Judicial restraint refers to the doctrine that judges' own philosophies or policy preferences should not be injected into the law and should whenever reasonably possible construe the law so as to avoid second guessing the policy decisions made by other governmental institutions such as Congress, the President and state legislatures. This view is based on the concept that judges have no popular mandate to act as policy makers and should defer to the decisions of the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and of the states in matters of policy making so long as these policymakers stay within the limits of their powers as defined by the US Constitution and the constitutions of the several states.
Quote from: SecondClass on November 12, 2014, 07:35:32 PMQuote from: IcyWind on November 12, 2014, 07:32:15 PMQuote from: SecondClass on November 12, 2014, 07:32:05 PMRestraint.Why?Because the Supreme Court's role isn't to champion progressiveness, it's to uphold current laws and protect the Constitution. If something is obviously unconstitutional or vastly outdated, then justices have the obligation to do something about it, sure. But it's the legislative branch's job to progress the country and try to push unique ideals, not the judicial's.1. Where did I refer to simply the Supreme Court? Any court, state or federal, can exercise restraint or activism. 2. If the legislative branch is not fulfilling their job, why can the court not assist in creating policy?
Quote from: Kupo on November 12, 2014, 07:37:02 PMIsn't "judicial activism" just a term invented by conservatives for when the court tells them they're wrong?No. In short terms...Quote Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own visions regarding the needs of contemporary society. Judicial activism believes that judges assume a role as independent policy makers or independent "trustees" on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws. The concept of judicial activism is the polar opposite of judicial restraint.Judicial restraint refers to the doctrine that judges' own philosophies or policy preferences should not be injected into the law and should whenever reasonably possible construe the law so as to avoid second guessing the policy decisions made by other governmental institutions such as Congress, the President and state legislatures. This view is based on the concept that judges have no popular mandate to act as policy makers and should defer to the decisions of the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and of the states in matters of policy making so long as these policymakers stay within the limits of their powers as defined by the US Constitution and the constitutions of the several states.
The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism.
Quote from: IcyWind on November 12, 2014, 07:38:45 PMQuote from: Kupo on November 12, 2014, 07:37:02 PMIsn't "judicial activism" just a term invented by conservatives for when the court tells them they're wrong?No. In short terms...Quote Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own visions regarding the needs of contemporary society. Judicial activism believes that judges assume a role as independent policy makers or independent "trustees" on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws. The concept of judicial activism is the polar opposite of judicial restraint.Judicial restraint refers to the doctrine that judges' own philosophies or policy preferences should not be injected into the law and should whenever reasonably possible construe the law so as to avoid second guessing the policy decisions made by other governmental institutions such as Congress, the President and state legislatures. This view is based on the concept that judges have no popular mandate to act as policy makers and should defer to the decisions of the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and of the states in matters of policy making so long as these policymakers stay within the limits of their powers as defined by the US Constitution and the constitutions of the several states. I'll take a snippet from the dissent in the recent DeBoer v. Snyder case:QuoteThe author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, the majority sets up a false premise—that the question before us is “who should decide?”—and leads us through a largely irrelevant discourse on democracy and federalism.I like that because it sums up every accusation of "judicial activism" I've ever heard of.
With out it, a judge can basically flaunt his/her political and social prejudice and beliefs and deliver a verdict that would be considered unfair
In a democratic society where legislation should be a direct extension of the will of the people via elections,
Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 12, 2014, 08:27:09 PMIn a democratic society where legislation should be a direct extension of the will of the people via elections,Ok. Now how about in America?
Quote from: IcyWind on November 12, 2014, 08:30:50 PMQuote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 12, 2014, 08:27:09 PMIn a democratic society where legislation should be a direct extension of the will of the people via elections,Ok. Now how about in America?The same, because that's what America is.
Quote from: Kinder on November 12, 2014, 08:16:40 PMWith out it, a judge can basically flaunt his/her political and social prejudice and beliefs and deliver a verdict that would be considered unfairHalf the Supreme Court wants a word with you.
Quote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 12, 2014, 08:33:26 PMQuote from: IcyWind on November 12, 2014, 08:30:50 PMQuote from: E̲n̲ga̲ge̲d̲T̲u̲r̲k̲e̲y on November 12, 2014, 08:27:09 PMIn a democratic society where legislation should be a direct extension of the will of the people via elections,Ok. Now how about in America?The same, because that's what America is.I hardly call much of the legislation coming out of the federal government a direct extension of the will of the people.
Judicial Restraint or Activism
