Talk:Judicial Activism

I have a concern with the statement about this being something limited to liberal judges. At least, from a historical standpoint. John Marshall was hardly someone you could call liberal. Commodore Guff 22:10, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Also, I've heard that Lochner v. New York was a famous case of "conservative" judicial activism. It struck down a state law regulating hours bakery employees could work because it violated a so-called right to contract between the employer and employee. Jesus Saves 04:23, 9 March 2007 (EST)

The first three lines (There are two major types of judicial activism practiced in the United States' court system: 1. Liberal judges striking down laws that uphold core conservative American value 2. Liberal judges refusing to strike down laws that subvert core conservative American values) look suspiciously like vandalism. The point about judicial activism is simply that of not enforcing the laws as they were written, not about how the laws fit with conservative values. Striking down a law just because it goes against someone's values, *anyone*'s values, would be judicial activism, i.e., legislating from the bench. --Bwilliston 22:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Cases of Judicial Activism?

I notice that Loving v. Virginia is listed as "judicial activism". Assuming "judicial activism" means making up rights without a basis in the Constitution, I think Loving is clearly *not* a good example of it. The 14th amendment does afford people an equal protection and due process right as against the States (or, in Loving, the Commonwealth of Virginia). From an originalist perspective the purpose of the 14th amendment was to limit the ability of the States to discriminate against people on the basis of race. While there might be federalism concerns (since the description suggests taking the decision away from the States, which ordinarily is a matter for State law), I think the precise reason the poster believes Loving is a case of judicial activism needs some unpacking.

In the Schiavo case, the State court certainly had the right to hear the case and I can imagine that the state laws might well have given *someone* the right to withdraw the feeding tube. In fact, from what I've read, if Terry Schiavo had written a living will, the court would have had no choice but to comply with her written intentions, so the case turned on the judge's factual findings of "what Terry would have wanted." One can argue the judge got it wrong, but being wrong about the facts doesn't make you a judicial activist. The judge didn't seem to "invent" new law, he just had a bizarre view of the facts and applied that to exiting law. So, again, I'd like a little more on why the state judge's decision was "activist." The list of cases looks suspiciously like "cases we don't like" rather than cases that are universally acknowledged to be judicial activism.

I'd suggest that a separate section be created listing cases in which charges of judicial activism have been made, along with the arguments that such cases are indeed activist. It seems that most determinations of activism will turn on subjective matters anyway, so separating the cases from the description of the phenomenon would probably serve this article well. Jesus Saves 14:56, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Brown v Board of Education

I find the reference added by DavidB on March 8 to be clear parody. There 's a small chance it has been misstated, but surely racial discrimination is not a "core conservative value" as his entry states. That being said, there is probably an argument for Brown being "judicial activism" given the subjective nature of that term. Jesus Saves 18:54, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Parody article

No one actually still believes that Brown & Loving were cases of "activist judges," do they? Anyways, Judicial Activism should be redirected to Judicial activism, so I did that.--AmesG 19:08, 12 March 2007 (EDT)