A View Bearing on Judicial Activism in the U.S.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Nicely said Les, tho' if one were to be ubber picky delineates may have been a better choice of words.

The other thing to bear in mind is that, as I understand it the constitution relates to everyone (including said slaves you refer to, good point btw). So in making decisions the Judges must ensure that in preserving one person (or groups) constitutional rights they are not denying the same rights to another.

I also agree with your point re who are likely to be Judges. However, for no particular reason I imagine that those in the USA are made up of a group a bit more widespread than our own. Our own being more likely to offend the liberal (small l :P ) element than to support them.

---

Be ubber picky - (I really ought to give my pride a rest and spell check :) )

Not sure about the US Judges - most of the senior ones I have seen on tv could be dopplegangers for our ones, but I daresay the minor courts have a better ethnic spread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

but I daresay the minor courts have a better ethnic spread.

---

I would be stunned, stunned I tell you, if they did not.

We are still very much a right school, right University attitude. Particularly when it comes to QCs. Any muppet who went to a secondary modern can become an Estate Agent, sorry Solicitor.

I presume that is the same for the senior ecelons of the judiciary in the USA. Not known for their liberal thinking one would wager.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

I presume that is the same for the senior ecelons of the judiciary in the USA. Not known for their liberal thinking one would wager.

---

"Activist judges" is a term coined by the right to describe the judges that make rulings that don't agree with their conservative view.... the term "liberal elite" tends to be used in the same sentence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vidcc

.... the term "liberal elite" tends to be used in the same sentence.

---

A tad oxymoronic one would have thought. Or perhaps those who use it wallow in the irony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

A tad oxymoronic one would have thought. .

---

It is a funny term but meant to describe those who are wealthy, educated and have influence or power that have a more "social" or less "christian" agenda.......the right say they are trying to tell others how to live while forgetting that they are doing the same.

It's kind of sad really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Herewith, a bit of interesting reading (I promise); I shant name it's author just now, as none of you ever seem to get past the name, for the most part.

---

well you know Phyllis Schlafly isn't exactly unbiased...........don't you ? :rolleyes: :lol:

J2

There are so many issues in that piece that I fear they swamp the overall argument that the US Judiciary are somehow out of control

Purely as an aside, if criminals persuaded a 12 year to pull the trigger would he too be executed? If a 15 year has sex it is considered a violation of childhood, yet is it ok to execute that 15 year old should he or she be involved in a murder? Cakes and eating it spring to mind. Even a hundred years ago most European countries did not execute those under 18 (21 in many countries - including the Austro-Hungarian Empire). The logic of the piece would dictate these countries should by now be over-run by pyschopathic teenagers.

All countries take cogniasance of what is happening in the world. I think we would applaud those countries who currently allow children to work in sweat shops to take note of generally accepted standards worldwide and let their Judiciary stamp the practice out.

The argument appears to be that the US should exist in a bubble with regards legal matters and the interpretation of the Constitution. Now there is nothing wrong with this per se but it would ill behove those who adopt such an argument to try to prick the bubble of others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I suppose that was a bit too easy, but:

Sure she has a point of view.

Care to parse it?

Or merely dismiss it?

---

Her agenda aside. I have already given an opinion on why it was justified to look at the rest of the world. On a side note I agree with the ruling that death is not a suitable sentence for those below the age of majority. We don't feel them mature enough to vote, marry without their parents permission...have sex or even drink so why should they be considered mature enough to be put to death. This doesn't mean that I am defending the crimes or saying that there should be light punishment, just there has to be a cut off..... what age would you make it? 17..16...12...10...6..

Quote:

---

I have a point of view, as do you, vid.

What of that?

---

Who said you don't have a point of view? I would like to read it some day though. ;)

There have been occasions where I didn't like the rulings because of the nature of the cases, however that doesn't mean that the ruling was wrong.

Take the schrivo case. Congress overstepped its powers and the judiciary rightly ruled. The mouthpiece for the overstepping was Mr. delay who no doubt feels that roe v wade is wrong, yet he tried to overrule the FL. state court to get it into federal court.

Now much as I abhor the hypocrisy shown by those members of congress I would like to see cases such as that go to federal level because I believe in "one nation, under that make believe character" and not different nations..... But that isn't how it is.

Who Phyllis? :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Biggles

Who Phyllis? :blink:

---

this might give you some idea