Difference between revisions of "Talk:Judicial Activism"
Bwilliston (talk | contribs) (pointing out possible vandalism) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
John Marshall was hardly someone you could call liberal. | John Marshall was hardly someone you could call liberal. | ||
[[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 22:10, 6 March 2007 (EST) | [[User:Commodore Guff|Commodore Guff]] 22:10, 6 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. | ||
Revision as of 03:47, March 7, 2007
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)
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.