Damn those activist judges! Damn them!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by ajbera
It really does depend on the laws in question. Your assumption is that any time a law is struck down as uncostitutional it represents "activism." Some of these laws are no doubt unconstitutional. "Activism" occurs when a proper constitutional law is struck down, or an unconstitutional law is not struck down.

Or when a federal law is interpreted in a way inconsistent with Congress's intent. People forget that most SCOTUS cases aren't about the constitution.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Then what is?

There is no mathematical metric, obviously, any more than there is of conservativism.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Frankly, I'd consider anytime a law is struck down as 'legislating from the bench'. After all, the court is changing the law.

That's silly. If a law is unconstitutional, then Congress doesn't have the power to pass it and it's not a law in the first place.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
That's silly. If a law is unconstitutional, then Congress doesn't have the power to pass it and it's not a law in the first place.

When a law is called unconstitutional, those that were prosecuted or fined under that law don't just get everything reversed (unless they were the complainant in the current case, or if their case is still in the system).

So yes, it WAS a law, but not anymore. It is just like the legislature passed another law repealing their original one.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by MrFun
I'm surprised how many people refuse to acknowledge Bosh's point.

I'm not. It sucks.

[Colon™]

I though difference between activist and conservative judges was that the latter looks at the original intent of constitution articles, while the former re-interprets to fit contemporary values in society.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

"Activism" occurs when a proper constitutional law is struck down, or an unconstitutional law is not struck down.

The question is what is a 'proper constitutional law' or an 'unconstitutional law'. Reasonable people disagree sometimes on what constitutes what.

Zounds! Usually, Supreme Court justices disagree on what constitutes what.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Colon
I though difference between activist and conservative judges was that the latter looks at the original intent of constitution articles, while the former re-interprets to fit contemporary values in society.

So what do you suppose the orginal intent of the founding fathers was on apply the "reasonable search"
clause to listening in on cell phone calls?

[Colon™]

I don't know, depends on the article, I guess?

[Colon™]

Take the civil rights rulings. Initially the Supreme Court ruled that segregation did not violate equality before law, because the facilities were just separate. Later on it ruled that segregation did in fact imply inequality and thus extended the range of equality beyond its literal meaning, which made the ruling activist.

Or something to that tune, right?

[Zkribbler]

Right.

In Plessey v. Fergerson, in IIRC the late 19th Century, the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities satisified the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. That is, as long as "separate but equal" facilities were provided to Black Americas, the races could be kept separate. The laws that followed, which required racial segregation, were called Jim Crow laws.

Then in the mid-50's, the Supreme Court reversed itself in Brown v. Board of Education, stating that separate was inherently unequal.

(Imran will be along in a minute to correct any errors in my above statements.)

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
The answer is: whatever 5 memebers of the Supreme Court say it is.

And the Pope is always right. And we've always been at war with Eastasia.

[KrazyHorse]

Kuci, kuci, kuci.

[Kuciwalker]

If the Court stated that the federal income tax was unconstitution, not only would it be incorrect, but Congress would be perfectly within its rights - in fact, it would be obligated IMO - to impeach the lot of them.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jaguar
I'm not. It sucks.

JIAR.