|
Until you sign up you can't do much. Yes, it's free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 | / / / Viewing Topic
|  |
|
|
|
|
 LiveWire Humor
|
|
Style Out
Visionary
 Patron
|
    
lolwut
-------
I'm watching you.
|
|
|
|
|
rileyana
Dairy Product Addict
|
idk judges have the kind of power for a reason
-------
I fly like paper, get high like planes
|
9:38 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 | Joined: Sep. 2008 | Days Active: 76
Join to learn more about rileyana Iowa, United States | Straight Female | Posts: 1,169 | Points: 2,018
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
( iconoclast )
corporate drone
Patron
|
Quote: from holysaiyan1 at 2:02 am on Nov. 30, 2008
 The judicial branch's job is to interpret what existing law says, based on precedent. When a judge becomes an activist judge, he or she is going against the established body of knowledge, in favor of listening to the heart. In essence, an activist judge is declaring that the highest law in the land, the Constitution, is in fact NOT the supreme law. The supreme law for an activist judge is the law of the heart. If a judge is supposed to uphold the Constitution, and an activist judge is putting their personal beliefs and feelings above the Constitution, they are in essence declaring themselves to be personally above the law. 
technically youre right, but when the legislative body is completely ignoring the constitution and violating common sense and basic liberties, isnt it the judiciary's responsibility to correct that if no one else will?
-------
join this group only if youre a mod
|
11:05 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 | Joined: April 2005 | Days Active: 792
Join to learn more about iconoclast New Jersey, United States | Straight Male | Posts: 37,384 | Points: 48,675
|
|
| |
|
|
obvious child
Guru
 Ad Free
|
Quote: from holysaiyan1 at 9:02 pm on Nov. 29, 2008
The judicial branch's job is to interpret what existing law says, based on precedent. When a judge becomes an activist judge, he or she is going against the established body of knowledge, in favor of listening to the heart. In essence, an activist judge is declaring that the highest law in the land, the Constitution, is in fact NOT the supreme law. The supreme law for an activist judge is the law of the heart. If a judge is supposed to uphold the Constitution, and an activist judge is putting their personal beliefs and feelings above the Constitution, they are in essence declaring themselves to be personally above the law.
The fundamental flaw in this is who's interpretation of the Constitution is correct? How was the Constitution suppose to be looked at? Furthermore, Scalia himself has more or less stated that the term activist means a judge who rules in a fashion you disagree with. It has nothing to do with whether or not they made the correct decision and if it was inline or out of line with the COTUS.
-------
"I give the probability of this working at zero" - Dan DeMatteo
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Looking for something else?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| / / / Viewing Topic | |
|
761 users online 
221703 members 
You have 1 new message.
