Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 66

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

  1. #1
    fkdup74's Avatar Pneuberator.
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    3,616
    hmmm....thought provoking indeed....now lemme collect em and I'll be back

    For rules to mean anything, they must be fixed.
    I think that pretty much sums up my POV



    and this is pure
    "It is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty"
    to respect internatinal opinion is one thing, but to be governed by it.....

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    Arm's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a well
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,461
    I think the assholes in Congress and the figurehead president and his adminstration of Nazis are better concearns then the court.

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    vidcc's Avatar there is no god
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,630
    I hope to get to this subject in depth j2.

    My initial statement is that:

    1. nothing is perfect

    2. It seems to be mostly that an activist judge is one whose ruling someone dislikes.

    itís an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    Arm's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    a well
    Age
    29
    Posts
    1,461
    Ide like to know what j2k4s intention is. Is he saying it's morally correct to send a mentally immature person to death and blaming the changing national and international opinion on the death penalty on activist judges? Or is the issue not important but the reason it was decided upon important?

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    Busyman's Avatar Use Logic Or STFU!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    13,839
    The article used a horrible comparison....

    Biking regularly to juvenile death penalty?

    One governs how I live (not encroaching upon others) and one governs punishment for crime (well...you understand).

    btw acknowledging the weight of international opinion means shit since their opinion is shit. For a judge to say this speaks ill of his own decision making.

    If the world killed 5 year-olds for their spinal cords and it went up to the Supreme Court, I don't think they should give their opinions weight just because they are international. International opinion should not be a 10th judge or worse, become one of the 9.

    Last edited by Busyman; 04-14-2005 at 01:55 PM.
    Silly bitch, your weapons cannot harm me. Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, Bitchhhh!

    Flies Like An Arrow, Flies Like An Apple
    ---12323---4552-----
    2133--STRENGTH--8310
    344---5--5301---3232

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    The comparison was an intentional juxtaposition of something trivial and something grave to stress a concept, not to declare them equal.

    Supreme Court judges are there to interpret our Constitution and it's intent, not to garner popular opinion.

    As to the bike example:

    The wrong answer:-In light of popular global opinion and medical research that states that bicycling prolongs life and improves health, we are enacting a mandatory biliking policy.

    The right answer:-According to the Constitution, each person has the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, therfore; the institution of mandatory biking is unconstitutional.


    To the Juvenile death penalty example:

    The wrong answer:- In light of popular global opinion.......

    The right answer:- According to the Constitution or the spirit of the Constitution as we interpret it....

    The judges are there to interpret our Constitution and stay within the confines of what it states. To go outside this document is essentially going beyond their boundaries. They are not entitled to do this.

    The result being that individual judges can use outside justification to promote their agendas which is not what we need. We need a stable reference, a constant source in which to determine whether a law is constitutional or not.

    To limit them to the Constitution allows us to keep our Judiciary machine calibrated, so it doesn't go wandering this way and that due to individual agendas or fad thinking.
    Last edited by hobbes; 04-12-2005 at 05:51 PM.
    Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    Busyman's Avatar Use Logic Or STFU!!!
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Posts
    13,839
    Quote Originally Posted by j2k4
    Nicely done, sir.

    Busyman-

    Go sit in the corner.
    Why? I said the same thing without mentioning the Constitution.
    Silly bitch, your weapons cannot harm me. Don't you know who I am? I'm the Juggernaut, Bitchhhh!

    Flies Like An Arrow, Flies Like An Apple
    ---12323---4552-----
    2133--STRENGTH--8310
    344---5--5301---3232

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    JPaul's Avatar Fat Secret Agent
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    19,934
    I find the notion and ideas quite fascinating.

    Not having a written constitution we come from an entirely different perspective. It is for Judges to interpret Acts of Parliament as and when the situation arises. No-one really knows how a law will pan out until it has been tested in Court. Even then senior Judges and higher Courts may interpret things differently. So you can't really read an Act and understand how it will work in Disneyland, sorry the real world.

    Parliament, the Judge and anyone else involved will also have to consider things like the ECHR (human rights convention) and possibly various other things. So our procedures are influenced, in fact dictated to by other laws. However we signed up to those so it was our choice.

    The advantage tho' is that we can be totally novel. We can scrap or amend prevous legislation. We can make laws to suit the situation.

    I think that you chaps hold this constitution too dear, genuinely sorry if that gives offence. I believe that you should make laws, that the people want, for todays world. It seems to me that you baulk at being influenced unduly by other society's who co-occupy today's world. However you are dictated to by your forefathers.

    Fly the nest, live in the modern world and make your own decisions. It would be a sign of you having reached maturity.

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    I guess I like the constitution because it is so broadly written. It is based on freedom of the individual. It promises life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

    It even states that if the Government is not fullfilling these duties, it needs to be removed.

    With this as the groundwork, I think that it is hard to go wrong.

    The big problem is that it is under implemented. Many of the lines did not translate to true rights for blacks and women, and now they do. The Constitution laid the framework for fairness and equality and we just need to fully implement this promise.

    My problem with it is that "the right to bear arms" portion was written in a time which is not comparable to our own. A time in which clashes with Indians were ongoing, when there was no insurance company to rebuild your house or town if looters came, when calling 911 was not possible and no effective police force existed. It was you versus whatever came you way, no help, no restitution.

    I no longer think we are following the intent of that Amendment, but simply the literal words. A following which is quite popular, but one which a Supreme Court could over rule if they deemed that the literal words no longer reflected the intent behind issuing such words.


    edit: know-->no
    Last edited by hobbes; 04-13-2005 at 12:34 PM.
    Aren't we in the trust tree, thingey?

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    vidcc's Avatar there is no god
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,630
    Quote Originally Posted by hobbes

    I know longer think we are following the intent of that Amendment, but simply the literal words. A following which is quite popular, but one which a Supreme Court could over rule if they deemed that the literal words no longer reflected the intent behind issuing such words.
    Purely for my personal entertainment I would like to see this happen

    itís an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.

Page 1 of 7 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •