Quote:
Originally Posted by KSig RC
Plus, the ramifications of the ruling (both in general, and certainly in this case in specific) really can't override what is Constitutionally correct, nor can "20 years of precedent," so really, most of the arguments fall flat completely.
|
Exactly.
That doesn't necessarily mean, though, that no legislative action can be taken to ameliorate at least to some degree the effects of the decision. Legislation cannot overturn or negate the holding in the decision, but it may be possible for legislation to impose some limits within the parameters of the decision and general law (to pass strict scrutiny, etc.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by KSigkid
Plus the fact that you can use the term "judicial activism" to apply to any ruling where the Court expands on or reinterprets precedent.
|
I can honestly say that I have seen what could be termed "judicial activism" from liberal judges and from consevrative judges. I can also say that, in my experience, a charge of "judicial activism" often means "the judge doesn't agree with me." If he rules with me, he's a great judge. If he doesn't, he's an activist. I see that a lot.
Threaded Mode
