Talk:Judicial activism

I reverted "not to rule as constrained by law" as this is vague and POV. Likewise "and not as they are supposed to do" is certainly POV. The link to judicial constraint does not exist, so it was reverted as well. Finally, the reference to liberal/left-wing judges being judicial activists was removed because this is addressed in the "Criteria for Accusation". In addition, the "higher-tendency" of liberal judges to rule in this way was unsupported by empirical evidence (see "Criteria for Accusation"). Queerudite 03:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"a common-sense reading of the law" is ambiguous and subject to a great deal of debate. I replaced this with a section on the "Criteria for Accusation" Me

I think judicial activism means judges changing the law, overturning laws, or introducing legal principles -- in such a way that usurps the role of Congress or state legislatures; or that takes the place of Constitutional Amendments.

I agree. I expanded the definition to include this along with other criteria. Me

Sometimes I agree with the results, like the Miranda Law (oops, not really a law, is it?) intended to prevent cops from sweating out false confessions from innocent suspects. But I think our nation (America) would be stronger if a bill were signed into law -- instead of a Supreme Court ruling establishing it.

My favored approach is: Congress or legislature makes the law, executive branch or governor enforces it, courts decide guilty or innocent.

Could someone finish this article, please? --Uncle Ed 18:18, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There is the point that the laws often contradict each other, or contradict the federal or state constitutions. I suspect a lot of accusations of judicial activism come from cases where there's just such a real or apparent contradiction. Evercat 22:51, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And I believe that many cases of judicial activism come from cases where there was NO SUCH contradiction, but someone simply decideded they didn't LIKE the law any more. Rather than seeking to change the law by passing a new one (majority vote and executive signs it, or 2/3 vote), it's much easier to get a pliant judge to issue a ruling.

The point is not whether this is right or wrong, since the W is not supposed to 'judge' this.

I know, but if you're allowed to state your opinion above then so am I. :-) Evercat 20:55, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My editorial concern is how to define and descrike judicial activism in the article. --Uncle Ed 17:58, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

1 Internationalism 2 Neutrality 3 Is it neutral now? 4 "related rulings"

Internationalism

Currently, everything after the first graf is U.S.-specific. Can someone please add some text relevant to the oher countries mentioned in the intro, or else make it clear that this is an article about U.S. politics? 18.26.0.18 03:06, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

Sections stating "fits definition" and "does not fit" are not neutral nor can they be. One cannot give a neutral list of cases which in fact constitute acts of judicial activism. Such is merely a matter of bitterly contested opinion. The term is derogatory in nature and so its applicaton is often resisted by those agreeing with a judicial opinion, either in outcome or reasoning. Those sections should be deleted.

The section on Roper should be deleted for similar reasons. The case does not illustrate "both sides" of the judicial activism debate. It is not as if the majority is defending judicial activism and the minority is attacking it. The majority would most likely shun the term altogether given its political and derrogatory nature. Whether majority engaged in judicial activism is an outsiders view, not appropriate for debate on a W page.RyanKoppelman 13:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Then put the other side's case. It should stay because this is a key case that illustrates the problems that critics have with what they call judicial supremacy. 203.213.77.138 03:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the best definition of judicial activism, as it is often used, is a legal opinion not decided on the basis of strict contstruction of a constitution or statute. But, then the list of cases would be long indeed. Strict construction has not been the predominant view in American jurisprudence for the last couple centuries. The intellectual value of this imprecise political term is limited and its value on W is limited too. The best this article can hope for is some measure of objectivity. -- RyanKoppelman 13:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Antonin Scalia prefers "original meaning" to "strict construction", and gives the example, "Do you use a cane?" means "Do you walk with a cane?" which is not according to the strict construction. The article pointed out that many of the criticised decisions have nothing to do with the original meaning of the constition, and some don't even pretend to, e.g. the Roper v Simmons where other countries and "evolving standards of decency" were appealed to.203.213.77.138 03:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shit. Look at the books listed: "The Supremacists: The Tyranny Of Judges And How To Stop It" and "Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America" That's neutral.--RyanKoppelman 13:58, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In a book and links list, naturally there will be partisan things. Many articles have list subdivisions of pro and con. 203.213.77.138 03:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whom in GOD"S NAME inserted "American corporate media" into this article? That's blatantly out of line and I'm editing it.

If I may make a general comment about the page, I must say not only as a law student, but as an anglophone, this has to be one of the most disorganised, poorly written pages I've encountered on Wikipedia. I agree that there has to be more written on international charges of judicial activism, and some blatantly biased phrases must be done away with. [Uberchouette, 5 april 2005]

Is it neutral now?

I made some changes, and I hope it's more neutral now. The article still sort of sucks, but can we at least change the red sign to a ((cleanup)) banner? (retroactive signing: Dave (talk))

No one has complained, and it's been about 5 days, so I'm going to do it. Dave (talk) 14:31, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

"related rulings"

I removed

Roper v. Simmons (2005) ruled that executing a minor was "now" unconstitutional, even if it had not been "until recently".

because:

1. it's POV in its wording
2. It's better if we don't list "activist" cases, as there is no consensus about which cases are activist. See the Neutrality discussion above on this page.

Dave (talk) 04:17, May 13, 2005 (UTC)