Difference between revisions of "Talk:Judicial activism"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m (I garbled my post in editing, just fixing.)
Line 5: Line 5:
 
It's hard to tell because the piece is so poorly written, but is this actually saying that racial segregation was "an integral part of society"? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 13:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
 
It's hard to tell because the piece is so poorly written, but is this actually saying that racial segregation was "an integral part of society"? [[User:Dadsnagem2|Dadsnagem2]] 13:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
 
:It was, at the time. It doesn't matter if racism is right or wrong, it's just the judiciaries place to say. It's the legislatures. If the court had ruled differently, chances are that interracial marriage would have been made legal and racial discrimination and segregation prohibited by state laws and an act of congress - by the will of the people as expressed by their representatives, not the thoughts of judges, however well-intended. And if they hadn't been able to redefine marriage for legal purposes then, it would be much harder for them to do so now. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 17:58, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 
:It was, at the time. It doesn't matter if racism is right or wrong, it's just the judiciaries place to say. It's the legislatures. If the court had ruled differently, chances are that interracial marriage would have been made legal and racial discrimination and segregation prohibited by state laws and an act of congress - by the will of the people as expressed by their representatives, not the thoughts of judges, however well-intended. And if they hadn't been able to redefine marriage for legal purposes then, it would be much harder for them to do so now. [[User:NewCrusader|NewCrusader]] 17:58, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
 +
 +
Is it just me, or is this article pretty obvious parody? [[User:TGeary|TGeary]] 22:19, 30 October 2008 (EDT)

Revision as of 21:19, 30 October 2008

GREAT Chevron cite, dude! I love the definition.--AmesG 18:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

I disagree with the definition. Roe v. Wade is "established precedent" now, but I wouldn't say that anyone who ever overrules a case (particularly that case) or who issues a ruling that appears to be contrary to it was a "judicial activist" To me, the core of "Judicial Activism" is inventing rights that are not established by the text of the Constitution or other law at issue, but that the judge thinks is "good policy" or otherwise thinks "should be" the law. I would say that overruling or ignoring precedent that itself established such a right is simple correction, rather than a new example of activism. JesusSaves 07:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

It's hard to tell because the piece is so poorly written, but is this actually saying that racial segregation was "an integral part of society"? Dadsnagem2 13:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)

It was, at the time. It doesn't matter if racism is right or wrong, it's just the judiciaries place to say. It's the legislatures. If the court had ruled differently, chances are that interracial marriage would have been made legal and racial discrimination and segregation prohibited by state laws and an act of congress - by the will of the people as expressed by their representatives, not the thoughts of judges, however well-intended. And if they hadn't been able to redefine marriage for legal purposes then, it would be much harder for them to do so now. NewCrusader 17:58, 5 October 2008 (EDT)

Is it just me, or is this article pretty obvious parody? TGeary 22:19, 30 October 2008 (EDT)