Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,947
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + + + +
Palko on judicial activism
{| class="infobox bordered" style="font-size:95%; width:25em;"
! style="font-size:120%; background:red; text-align:center; padding:5px 0;" | Judicial activism and revolution
|-
| style="padding:15px;" |If you want to perform a [[revolution]], i.e. to fundamentally change the society and turn its values upside down, there are in essence three ways how to achieve for it:
#You can armor yourself and your friends and make and coup d'état attempt, a violent putsch as [[Bolshevik]]s did in 1917. This is however associated with putting your life at stake.
#The second option is to campaign before democratic elections in order to win the majority of voters, and then change the law in parliament. However, who has been in [[politics]] knows well how difficult it is to convince the public opinion.
#Last decades show that the easiest way to implement a revolution goes through the courts. You can only be a small group. You can even be completely alone. But if you have "your people" at the supreme court of the country, people who think like you, you have won. The court decides and the majority of citizens who firmly disagree with the ruling cannot help it. This is called judicial activism. Those who do not use napkins in front of their mouths speak also of judicial imperialism.<div style="padding-left:40px;">— Vladimír Palko<ref name="Palko2009">{{cite journal |title=Revolucionári v talároch (Revolutionaries in gowns) |author=Vladimír Palko |journal=Impulz |issue=4 |volume=2009 |url=http://www.impulzrevue.sk/article.php?515 |quote=Ak chcete uskutočniť revolúciu, od základu zmeniť spoločnosť a prevrátiť jej hodnoty hore nohami, máte tri možnosti. Môžete vyzbrojiť seba a svojich spoločníkov a urobiť násilný prevrat. Boľševici tak urobili v roku 1917 v Rusku. Samozrejme, môžete pri tom prísť o život. Druhá možnosť je agitovať, získavať hlasy, vo voľbách získať väčšinu, a potom zmeniť zákony v parlamente. Pravda, kto bol v politike, vie, ako ťažko sa získava väčšina. Posledných päťdesiat rokov ukazuje, že najschodnejšia cesta uskutočnenia revolúcie ide cez súdy. Môžete byť iba malou skupinkou. Môžete byť dokonca úplne sám. Ak máte na najvyššom súde krajiny „svojich ľudí“, ľudí, ktorí rozmýšľajú ako vy, máte vyhraté. Súd rozhodne a väčšina občanov, ktorá s rozhodnutím bytostne nesúhlasí, si nepomôže. Toto sa nazýva súdnym aktivizmom. Tí, čo si nedávajú servítok pred ústa, tiež hovoria o súdnom imperializme. ...Kolískou súdneho aktivizmu sú Spojené štáty americké. |accessdate=9 Jul 2016 |language=Slovak}}</ref></div>
|}
'''Judicial activism''' is when [[court]]s do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. "Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of [[Congress]], rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.
'''Judicial activism''' is when [[court]]s do not confine themselves to reasonable interpretations of laws, but instead create law. Alternatively, judicial activism is when courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule to apply broadly to issues not presented in the specific action. "Judicial activism" is when judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law, or when judges act like a legislature (legislating from the bench) rather than like a traditional court. In so doing, the court takes for itself the powers of [[Congress]], rather than limiting itself to the powers traditionally given to the judiciary.
In this regard, judicial activism is a way for liberals to avoid the regular legislative means of enacting laws in order to ignore public opinion and dodge public debate.
In this regard, judicial activism is a way for liberals to avoid the regular legislative means of enacting laws in order to ignore public opinion and dodge public debate.
The cradle of judicial activism is USA.<ref name="Palko2009"/>
Courts in California — both state and federal ones — frequently engage in judicial activism. One major example of this is the relatively recent California Supreme Court decision ''In re Marriage Cases'', wherein four California [[Supreme Court]] justices (who are appointed, not elected) unilaterally overruled the will of the people of the state of California, and legalized gay "marriage." Proposition 22, which recognized the traditional definition of marriage had previously been put in place by a majority of California voters, but this did not deter the [[liberal]] judges of the court from acting. In response, a majority of California voters passed [[Proposition 8]], which amended California's Constitution to uphold the sanctity of marriage, stemming the tide of the [[liberal]] [[homosexual]] assault on marriage before it was too late.
Courts in California — both state and federal ones — frequently engage in judicial activism. One major example of this is the relatively recent California Supreme Court decision ''In re Marriage Cases'', wherein four California [[Supreme Court]] justices (who are appointed, not elected) unilaterally overruled the will of the people of the state of California, and legalized gay "marriage." Proposition 22, which recognized the traditional definition of marriage had previously been put in place by a majority of California voters, but this did not deter the [[liberal]] judges of the court from acting. In response, a majority of California voters passed [[Proposition 8]], which amended California's Constitution to uphold the sanctity of marriage, stemming the tide of the [[liberal]] [[homosexual]] assault on marriage before it was too late.