Reason: Conservatives v. Libertarians: the debate over judicial activism divides former allies.

[ACW]

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Conservatives+v.+Libertarians%3A+the+debate+over+judicial+activism...-a0227945189

Not on reason's site yet.

VERY interesting (if long) read.

[Veretax]

Let me see if I get this. Liberal Judges make rullings that in essence create new laws and precedents. LAter Judges who are Conservative, get case, and review and decide that this was in error, issues rulling which changes the laws and creates new precedents. So what's the argument here that only liberals should be fiating from the bench?

It seems to me restoring law to where it was before the original activism, is not activism, it is restoring things to how they should have been to begin with.

(wow that's too long to read in its entirety though.)

[ACW]

Nobody else finds this interesting?

[dfitzo53]

Nobody else finds this interesting?

The title of your thread had only two words with less than six letters. That's probably enough to scare most people away, at least before noon.

[Madison Redskin]

It seems to me restoring law to where it was before the original activism, is not activism, it is restoring things to how they should have been to begin with. (wow that's too long to read in its entirety though.)

The "original intent" theory is crazy. For example, the 14th Amendment was adopted shortly after the end of the Civil War. The 14th Amendment generally provides that no state can deny people equal protection under the law. I doubt that the drafters intended that the 14th Amendment would serve as a basis for desegregating schools and other public facilities. That's why, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment and segregated public facilities were perfectly compatible.

Then, along came that "activist" court in Brown v. Board of Education. The Court overturned Plessy and ruled that the 14th Amendment prohibits segregated public facilities. This ruling was arguably inconsistent with the drafters' original intent.

Do you think a conservative court should come along and reverse Brown?

[Veretax]

Wow, they said the same thing about Rand Paul, that oh because we believe in this or that, that in exactly ALL cases it means throwing out the old. There was a problem with Segregation, but IMO it wasn't the segregation part (where schools were concerned)... However, as I wasn't alive then I can't really tell you what things were like except what I've read, and most history texts I've seen look at brown as a good thing.

I'm not a lawyer though, so I really don't care about brown vs board, There were some things where I think the constitution intended things that maybe weren't initiall present. I mean didn't several founding fathers say that the slaves should be free? But they compromised so they could pass something as I recall.

[Madison Redskin]

Wow, they said the same thing about Rand Paul, that oh because we believe in this or that, that in exactly ALL cases it means throwing out the old. There was a problem with Segregation, but IMO it wasn't the segregation part (where schools were concerned)... However, as I wasn't alive then I can't really tell you what things were like except what I've read, and most history texts I've seen look at brown as a good thing.

I'm not a lawyer though, so I really don't care about brown vs board, There were some things where I think the constitution intended things that maybe weren't initiall present. I mean didn't several founding fathers say that the slaves should be free? But they compromised so they could pass something as I recall.

So, do you think that the Court was wrong to order the desegregation of public facilities? After all, they were acting as an activist court.

[ACW]

We libertarians believe an active judiciary can be a good thing.

[alexey]

Words are merely vehicles to communicate the meaning. Meaning and applicability of words changes with time, but meaning of our founding documents should not. Staying true to these documents means staying true to their meaning.

"The fish trap exists because of the fish. Once you've gotten the fish you can forget the trap. The rabbit snare exists because of the rabbit. Once you've gotten the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words exist because of meaning. Once you've gotten the meaning, you can forget the words. Where can I find a man who has forgotten words so I can talk with him?

[Larry]

Actually, when I see the words "activist judges", one of the things I reflect on are the people who've been outraged at various courts because they haven't been activist.

The Kelo decision left alone a precedent that was over 100 years old, and their were howls or rage.

In Bush v. Gore, the USSC overturned the decision of the Florida Supreme Court, because the Florida Supreme Court didn't invent a standard for counting ballots that wasn't in the state law.

[ACW]

Kelo was fail.

[nonniey]

The "original intent" theory is crazy. For example, the 14th Amendment was adopted shortly after the end of the Civil War. The 14th Amendment generally provides that no state can deny people equal protection under the law. I doubt that the drafters intended that the 14th Amendment would serve as a basis for desegregating schools and other public facilities. That's why, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court held that the 14th Amendment and segregated public facilities were perfectly compatible.

Then, along came that "activist" court in Brown v. Board of Education. The Court overturned Plessy and ruled that the 14th Amendment prohibits segregated public facilities. This ruling was arguably inconsistent with the drafters' original intent.

Do you think a conservative court should come along and reverse Brown?

That isn't what he debating now is it? The point is that describing Justices as activist for reversing earlier precident is inaccurate.

[Larry]

That isn't what he debating now is it? The point is that describing Justices as activist for reversing earlier precident is inaccurate.

So, your definition is . . . ?

[Madison Redskin]

That isn't what he debating now is it? The point is that describing Justices as activist for reversing earlier precident is inaccurate.

Veretax didn't merely argue that it is inaccurate to describe justices who reverse earlier precedent as "activist." He also said that justices should reverse precedent if it is inconsistent the drafters' original intent.

It seems to me restoring law to where it was before the original activism, is not activism, it is restoring things to how they should have been to begin with. (wow that's too long to read in its entirety though.)