Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is there really such a concept? The Supreme Court system is not there to preserve the status quo; its function is to protect individual rights and privileges. Laws change as society changes. So when justices reach a majority opinion regarding sensitive constitutional issues, why is this considered "activism?"
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,769,842 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by evolvement
Is there really such a concept? The Supreme Court system is not there to preserve the status quo; its function is to protect individual rights and privileges. Laws change as society changes. So when justices reach a majority opinion regarding sensitive constitutional issues, why is this considered "activism?"
It is only "activism" when the decision they make does not agree with your political philosophy.
The term is used by "conservatives" in a derogatory manner, which is just another gripe of the far right bigots because it struck down their Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, red-lining, all forms of discrimination and most of our formerly segregated society. JA is part and parcel of the code talk and doublespeak of GOP bigots.
What the GOP bigots choose to ignore is that for 100 years, from the end of the Civil War in 1865 to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1965 era, that no less than 50 different Congresses were sworn in. Elected officials had 100 years to end segregation and all the other abuses. Nothing got done - FOR 100 YEARS! Finally, it took the SCOTUS in Brown vs Board of Education to strike down school segregation, and more court decisions came along to strike down most/all of the other hateful aspects of our racist history. That these ills had to be rectified by JA, and not by our elected leaders, proves that most of our elected leaders are mere tirds and if it weren't for the SCOTUS and JA then we'd still be one hell of a creepy nation. Since no one in Congress would legislate the fairness that our constitution calls for, the ONLY remedy was to go the JA route.
The GOP and the right hate JA because is deprives them of their ability to deprive others of their rights. The only thing "wrong" about JA is that the cowards we elect to office won't do their jobs in the first place, if they did, we'd not need JA.
Is there really such a concept? The Supreme Court system is not there to preserve the status quo; its function is to protect individual rights and privileges. Laws change as society changes. So when justices reach a majority opinion regarding sensitive constitutional issues, why is this considered "activism?"
Its function is to interpret the constitution as it was designed and to interpret laws as they were designed (ie the spirit of the law).
The very act of "activism" is honestly the "living" interpretation of the times. When a judge takes in factors to which the law did not intend in order to render a decision, they do so of their own accord.
If the constitution and laws in general are merely meant to be the "readers" interpetation, then what we have is a council of people who decide as they see fit the laws of the land. That is not their purpose, they are not to legislate, that is what congress is for.
The constitution means nothing if it can be changed, altered, and interpreted based on the times. For if it is merely the interpretation that decides its will, then anything can be made to be a justification in its name. It no longer holds as a protection, an affirmation of rights, but simply a document to be used by those who have the power to enforce their own take on its meaning.
Its function is to interpret the constitution as it was designed and to interpret laws as they were designed.
I thought the Constitution was written to be interpreted according to the well established rules of construction that prevailed at the time the instrument was made.
How does one ascertain the "design" of the Constitution?
Through history, by reading all aspects to which the document was written, designed and affirmed. By placing the document within context of those who wrote it. We will never be able to speak with those who wrote it personally, but we are able to look into every aspect of their lives private and public to get an idea of what they were talking about. We look at the times, the context of the situations and their dealings. Basically, everything of the time is looked at to see what it is that they truly meant.
Obviously some things do not translate directly, yet the core of their ideal does. Ignoring that so we can claim "we are better, we are smarter, we are wiser" is nothing more than a teenagers proclamation of their own interpretation to which is all too often found to be driven by arrogance and ignorance.
I thought the Constitution was written to be interpreted according to the well established rules of construction that prevailed at the time the instrument was made.
Did I not say that? I know your "thing" flash concerning the legalities of these issues and I probably agree with you upon many things. That said, there is the legal letter of the law and the spirit of the law. If you attempt to use the legal letter of the law to proclaim the spirit, you have already headed down a path of reconstruction.
Its function is to interpret the constitution as it was designed and to interpret laws as they were designed (ie the spirit of the law).
The very act of "activism" is honestly the "living" interpretation of the times. When a judge takes in factors to which the law did not intend in order to render a decision, they do so of their own accord.
If the constitution and laws in general are merely meant to be the "readers" interpetation, then what we have is a council of people who decide as they see fit the laws of the land. That is not their purpose, they are not to legislate, that is what congress is for.
The constitution means nothing if it can be changed, altered, and interpreted based on the times. For if it is merely the interpretation that decides its will, then anything can be made to be a justification in its name. It no longer holds as a protection, an affirmation of rights, but simply a document to be used by those who have the power to enforce their own take on its meaning.
Well said, Nomander! Wasn't it SCOTUS Justice William Brennan who once said something like "the genius of the Constitution is in that it can be adapted to fit current needs."?
In other words, he saw it as something that could be stretched and interpretted any way he saw fit to justify imposing his own ideology on the country.
Is there really such a concept? The Supreme Court system is not there to preserve the status quo; its function is to protect individual rights and privileges. Laws change as society changes. So when justices reach a majority opinion regarding sensitive constitutional issues, why is this considered "activism?"
I believe their job is to correctly interpret the constitution! So the issue becomes the judge who is doing the interpreting!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Judicial Activism (JA)
