-- Posted by iconoclast at 9:32 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 i mean it certainly CAN be abused, but given that our legislative body is often bloated and inefficient and bases its decisions more on politics than whats right, it doesnt seem to me that theres anything wrong with judicial activism within the realm of 'common sense' except that it sets a 'bad precedent'. yeah ideally the legislators would just get it right but they wont -- Posted by Style Out at 9:33 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 lolwut -- Posted by Baron Samedi at 9:36 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 No. Judges have that kind of power for a reason. -- Posted by rileyana at 9:38 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 idk judges have the kind of power for a reason -- Posted by iconoclast at 9:40 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 Quote: from rileyana at 12:38 am on Nov. 30, 2008 idk judges have the kind of power for a reason do you know what you just said -- Posted by holysaiyan1 at 11:02 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. -- Posted by iconoclast at 11:05 pm on Nov. 29, 2008 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? -- Posted by obvious child at 5:58 pm on Nov. 30, 2008 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. -- Posted by hctiwsblade13 at 6:39 pm on Nov. 30, 2008 Honestly, every justice is going to incorporate his or her views into their Constitutional interpretation.  It sucks, but it's how government works.  The Constitution gets manipulated either way, but what's most important is using Constitutional evidence to uphold liberty, equality, and all that jazz.