This is judicial activism. You don't look beyond the law, you apply it. And the Constitution doesn't let anyone get too powerful if it's applied correctly. The only clear mistakes in our Constitution was a lack of equal applied law no matter the race (back durning the stupid slavery days... and women's general right to vote). The initial comprimise of allowing slavery to be a non-issue... was the biggest moronic blunder of our founding. Other than that, our laws are extremely smart, but completely hexed by dumbasses like this. Impose his own moral values on a country, when his job never implied that. What a wasted position in the courts. Yeah, the 'rule of law', when it's your morals. Lord knows we poor little-minded citizens can't appropriately assign additions we find fit. Although I must say, I agree on the principles that one shouldn't get 'too powerful', but I think of that as a government problem...not a private sector problem. This isn't even remotely like Brown v. Board. It's matter of practicality vs complete idealism in this case...where if a 'white kid' wants to go to a local school, their admission can be stamped out because they're not meeting racial quotos. It's retarded idealism. Yeah, we all don't know what 'is' means either. lol. You tell me what it means, because we're all morons, apparently. The same way, dumbass. This is our court!? Yeah, whatever you say, chief. The constitutional is whatever your idealogy is...fuck the law. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061203/ap_on_go_su_co/breyer_democracy
No one cares about this issue? This has changed our government in so many ways. The very foundation of our government relies on good judges. Without them, we're a downward spiral.
I think there's room for some activism where the constitution is not clear or has no opinion on the matter. But when judges start ignoring the constitution then we have a problem.
I'm a bit tired of the liberal activism from the bench. Any judge willing to admit that they are going around the constitution is unfit to be a judge in that position! It won't be long until the judges rule this nation and make up new laws to keep themselves in power.
A great deal of them do their job, and do it well. Even some that are appointed by democrats. But many are just political tools--partisan hacks. Over a few generations they've dissolved our system down. I can understand why parties try to vote things in that are wrong; but judges are suppose to be above agenda or bias. They're suppose to listen to the best arguements they have available to them, and use their most sound judgement to uphold the law.
Please be aware that the following is my understanding of the matter, and should not be taken as hard facts, nor should my intention be construed to present them as such. A huge part of the problem is the notion that the Constitution, as a living document, should be reinterpreted to fit the needs of the current political majority. The constitution evolves only through a mechanism that was built into it from the beginning, the ability to amend the constitution. These days a judge who is impartial, and seeks to apply the law and constitution as they see them to read have a hard time being appointed through the ‘confirmation’ process, where the legislature is able to confirm or deny the appointment of a judge. This was originally meant to prevent unfit judges from being appointed, thus limiting the power of the President to appoint them, but is currently used to appoint judges who will support the political agenda of those confirming them. Generally, judges with a firm stance in their understanding of the constitution and the law don’t make it through this process well. And no, a decision about whether segregation in public schools is legal is not exactly the same as a decision about whether giving preference to members of an, on average, disadvantaged race is not exactly the same. However, the cases are similar in that both deal with giving preferential treatment in to one arbitrarily defined racial group over another, as it pertains to who is allowed to attend a particular school. However, I would like to point out that brown v board of education IS judicial activism at it's finest.
Depends on how you look at it. The basis of that case was on the 14th amendment. That amendment was a 'war time' amendment ie a condition of the South's surrender. Not really a product of geniune Constitutional change. But regardless it's consider the law of the land for most Americans...even though that's probably one of the most abused and wildly expansive amendments used. Although, personally, I think the general sense of it is appropriate and needed. The key argument (by Chief Warren) was this part of the amendment:nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What's key in it, is the implication the term 'equal'. The Chief argues that the amendment was riddled with ambiguity in what that meant at the time. At times he offers his own moral opinion is on that term....but.... It's really not the complicated, chief...nor all that applicable to the amendment. The amendment only passed due it's condition on the Southern's surrender...thus what it meant by some of the voting constituents is a moot arguement. Common sense grammar would due...not his current political thesis on what 'is' means. Is it equal protection to apply murder laws to both blacks and whites? Yes or no? Yes, obviously. I can name a list of these laws, and they would all apply equally to each race, and so the same with public schools. It doesn't not matter the transgressions puported mostly by the south in terms of applying laws equally, nor their opinions at the time of assigning that Constitution to law. The Constitution is an enforcement, not a guarantee that others will abuse it....sadly even at the Judicial level. While I may not agree with the method of Warren's reasoning, our opinions are very similiar on Brown vs Board. As long as we as states hold the policy of public schooling (which I'm not a fan of), we must apply equal protection under them...and them only. So I don't necessarily view the overall opinion as activism...he may state things that come from his own morale compass, but the end is virtually the same...even with a bit of my reasoning in it. To put it simply: right way, but say less, Warren.
The judicial activism in Brown vs Board of education is apparent when we see how it overturned previous rulings. It all hinged on how one defined equal, and how one ensured that equality was insured. Previously it was judged that as long as citizens were given equal rights and privileges (protections) under the law, it did not matter if these rights were different. In Brown vrs board of education it was ruled that by nature, forced separation necessarily led to inequality, and thus the separation was unconstitutional. Seperation it's self is not forbidden in the amendment, only inequality. Equating the two, while correct in my opinion, was a matter of an individual's judgment based on facts and existing evidence, not a fact in and of it's self. This was entirely a matter of interpreting the intent of a law, and changing the commonly held notions and legal views of a nation by force because of the interpretations of the supreme court justices. That, in my opinion is judicial activism, and an example of judicial activism used correctly, within the framework set by the constitution.
There's nothing in law that prevent overturning precedence. Generally American judges recognize a high level of precedence (Stare decisis)...where things are defended and assigned a geniune part in the countries governing. But there's absolutely nothing to stop overtuning anything, no-matter how long it's been around. That in itself doesn't make it judicial activism. The previous opinion(s) to Brown were forms of judicial activism. The nullification of that theory isn't necessarily bad...not the best way of doing things, but not bad. Defining 'equal' is not the essence of the arguement (perse), but whether or not sanctioning a law of segregration was reputable to the establishment of equal protection. When it was throughly denoting a sense of inferiority on part of the black americans of the time (suggesting 'a tendency to retard the educational and mental development'), which had been noted in previous cases. Warren spends quite sometime on arguing that it's the sanctioning of this law which lead to inequality both in quality and humanity. Note: No where in 14th amendment do they note 'equal quality'...that's just word play to overturn previous activism. I deny the importance of his quality theory, as you can't possibly equalize quality across the board practically...but it truely is a denial of equal protection via the sanctioning of segregration...humanity. It's common-sense to go from there. A two-point view. nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. State sanctioned segregation isn't an equally applied law. Like all Crow laws, it's not implied on all citizens, but is purely a means of sectionalizing the races. It's common sense to perceive the lack of equal application/protection. So no, I disagree. I would have supported an altered opinion, but nevertheless the same sort of direction would have been taken. Warren was using a semi-judicial activist approach to an opposing view that was just as activist-minded. But that's how the courts work at times....they play with words, rather than common-sense. Historically the opinion would have better if it started off correctly in the first place. One could argue kids (whom are citizens) lose their liberty by being forced in to compulsory schooling or that the law doesn't tax people 'equally'...thus all being against the 14th amendment. Those arguements would be quickly dismissed in todays court...but who knows what the future may bring. Perhaps people may 'right' a wrong, but using court activism. I'd much prefer they use these applications very lightly and properly ie they don't bring their own agenda to the table. I'm assuming you voted yes,...? I would disagree very gravely,...as judicial activism can work against you or for you...depending on your interests. The best thing to do is throughly apply the law, and force that decesion upon the public....and in some cases overturn cases of activism on solid reasoning/law. We're not a dictatorship...we're a representive republic. We rise or fall on the limited powers of the people and our representives/judges.
Okay, putting aside Brown Vrs. Board of Education for a moment (I’m sure we’ll return to it later if this discussion continues), I think that we have differing definitions of Judicial Activism. I define activism as taking a definite action to make a change, one which you believe to be in the right. Judicial activism is a judge taking that action as a part of their position and within the course of discharging their duties. When a judge makes a ruling that changes how things are done on a large scale, overturns a long standing law, ect, I personally view that to be judicial activism. The dictionary says that this involves taking actions based on one’s political motives or goals. In my opinion, attempting to make sure that the law is applied in a way that you believe to be the correct, when others believe that to be an incorrect application of the law is a political motive or goal. Attempting to apply the law as they read it, as they understand it, as they believe it should be, and was meant to be applied, is a part of the job of a judge, and thus doing so is right and proper in my opinion. It could be that our disagreement stems from our differing definitions, and nothing else.