- This topic has 735 replies, 40 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 3 months ago by
briansd1.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 9, 2009 at 9:50 AM #428118July 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM #427440
briansd1
Guest[quote=temeculaguy][quote=briansd1]
Sarah Palin talks like a girl from Temecula giving her high-school presentation.
[/quote]
Do we need to go there brian, really? Did you want me to head to the pantry and bust out a can of whoop ass, I’m all stocked up.[/quote]
That was a compliment, at least to that mythical high-school girl from Temecula, hahaha.
July 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM #427667Guest[quote=temeculaguy][quote=briansd1]
Sarah Palin talks like a girl from Temecula giving her high-school presentation.
[/quote]
Do we need to go there brian, really? Did you want me to head to the pantry and bust out a can of whoop ass, I’m all stocked up.[/quote]
That was a compliment, at least to that mythical high-school girl from Temecula, hahaha.
July 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM #427955Guest[quote=temeculaguy][quote=briansd1]
Sarah Palin talks like a girl from Temecula giving her high-school presentation.
[/quote]
Do we need to go there brian, really? Did you want me to head to the pantry and bust out a can of whoop ass, I’m all stocked up.[/quote]
That was a compliment, at least to that mythical high-school girl from Temecula, hahaha.
July 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM #428027Guest[quote=temeculaguy][quote=briansd1]
Sarah Palin talks like a girl from Temecula giving her high-school presentation.
[/quote]
Do we need to go there brian, really? Did you want me to head to the pantry and bust out a can of whoop ass, I’m all stocked up.[/quote]
That was a compliment, at least to that mythical high-school girl from Temecula, hahaha.
July 9, 2009 at 11:29 AM #428188Guest[quote=temeculaguy][quote=briansd1]
Sarah Palin talks like a girl from Temecula giving her high-school presentation.
[/quote]
Do we need to go there brian, really? Did you want me to head to the pantry and bust out a can of whoop ass, I’m all stocked up.[/quote]
That was a compliment, at least to that mythical high-school girl from Temecula, hahaha.
July 9, 2009 at 12:37 PM #427465Allan from Fallbrook
Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Zeitgeist]
There is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Both are important in understanding the rule of law and that is why there are judges in the court room.[/quote]And I thought that we didn’t want judges to be judicial activists? Humm….[/quote]
Brian: What does a judge interpreting the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law have to do with judicial activism?
I think I’m missing something here.
July 9, 2009 at 12:37 PM #427692Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Zeitgeist]
There is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Both are important in understanding the rule of law and that is why there are judges in the court room.[/quote]And I thought that we didn’t want judges to be judicial activists? Humm….[/quote]
Brian: What does a judge interpreting the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law have to do with judicial activism?
I think I’m missing something here.
July 9, 2009 at 12:37 PM #427980Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Zeitgeist]
There is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Both are important in understanding the rule of law and that is why there are judges in the court room.[/quote]And I thought that we didn’t want judges to be judicial activists? Humm….[/quote]
Brian: What does a judge interpreting the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law have to do with judicial activism?
I think I’m missing something here.
July 9, 2009 at 12:37 PM #428052Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Zeitgeist]
There is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Both are important in understanding the rule of law and that is why there are judges in the court room.[/quote]And I thought that we didn’t want judges to be judicial activists? Humm….[/quote]
Brian: What does a judge interpreting the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law have to do with judicial activism?
I think I’m missing something here.
July 9, 2009 at 12:37 PM #428214Participant[quote=briansd1][quote=Zeitgeist]
There is a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Both are important in understanding the rule of law and that is why there are judges in the court room.[/quote]And I thought that we didn’t want judges to be judicial activists? Humm….[/quote]
Brian: What does a judge interpreting the spirit of the law versus the letter of the law have to do with judicial activism?
I think I’m missing something here.
July 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM #427579scaredyclassic
ParticipantThe term “judicial activism” is frequently used in political debate without definition, which has created some confusion over its precise meaning or meanings. In an effort to clarify the situation, Bradley C. Canon has identified six dimensions along which judges or courts may be perceived as activist:[1]
1. Majoritarianism- This dimension takes into account the degree to which policies adopted through the democratic process are judicially overturned.
2. Interpretive stability- This dimension takes into account the degree to which court decisions alter earlier decisions, doctrines, or constitutional interpretations.
3. Interpretive fidelity- This dimension takes into account the degree to which constitutional provisions are interpreted contrary to the clear intentions of their drafters, or the clear implications of the language used in the provision. (See also Judicial interpretation)
4. Substance/democratic process- This dimension takes into account the degree to which judicial decisions make substantive policy, as opposed to acting to preserve the democratic political process.
5. Specificity of policy- This dimension takes into account the degree to which a judicial decision establishes policy itself, as opposed to leaving discretion to other agencies.
6. Availability of an alternate policymaker- This dimension takes into account the degree to which a judicial decision supersedes or inhibits serious consideration of the same problem by other government agencies.July 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM #427807ParticipantThe term “judicial activism” is frequently used in political debate without definition, which has created some confusion over its precise meaning or meanings. In an effort to clarify the situation, Bradley C. Canon has identified six dimensions along which judges or courts may be perceived as activist:[1]
1. Majoritarianism- This dimension takes into account the degree to which policies adopted through the democratic process are judicially overturned.
2. Interpretive stability- This dimension takes into account the degree to which court decisions alter earlier decisions, doctrines, or constitutional interpretations.
3. Interpretive fidelity- This dimension takes into account the degree to which constitutional provisions are interpreted contrary to the clear intentions of their drafters, or the clear implications of the language used in the provision. (See also Judicial interpretation)
4. Substance/democratic process- This dimension takes into account the degree to which judicial decisions make substantive policy, as opposed to acting to preserve the democratic political process.
5. Specificity of policy- This dimension takes into account the degree to which a judicial decision establishes policy itself, as opposed to leaving discretion to other agencies.
6. Availability of an alternate policymaker- This dimension takes into account the degree to which a judicial decision supersedes or inhibits serious consideration of the same problem by other government agencies.July 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM #428095ParticipantThe term “judicial activism” is frequently used in political debate without definition, which has created some confusion over its precise meaning or meanings. In an effort to clarify the situation, Bradley C. Canon has identified six dimensions along which judges or courts may be perceived as activist:[1]
1. Majoritarianism- This dimension takes into account the degree to which policies adopted through the democratic process are judicially overturned.
2. Interpretive stability- This dimension takes into account the degree to which court decisions alter earlier decisions, doctrines, or constitutional interpretations.
3. Interpretive fidelity- This dimension takes into account the degree to which constitutional provisions are interpreted contrary to the clear intentions of their drafters, or the clear implications of the language used in the provision. (See also Judicial interpretation)
4. Substance/democratic process- This dimension takes into account the degree to which judicial decisions make substantive policy, as opposed to acting to preserve the democratic political process.
5. Specificity of policy- This dimension takes into account the degree to which a judicial decision establishes policy itself, as opposed to leaving discretion to other agencies.
6. Availability of an alternate policymaker- This dimension takes into account the degree to which a judicial decision supersedes or inhibits serious consideration of the same problem by other government agencies.July 9, 2009 at 2:48 PM #428167ParticipantThe term “judicial activism” is frequently used in political debate without definition, which has created some confusion over its precise meaning or meanings. In an effort to clarify the situation, Bradley C. Canon has identified six dimensions along which judges or courts may be perceived as activist:[1]
1. Majoritarianism- This dimension takes into account the degree to which policies adopted through the democratic process are judicially overturned.
2. Interpretive stability- This dimension takes into account the degree to which court decisions alter earlier decisions, doctrines, or constitutional interpretations.
3. Interpretive fidelity- This dimension takes into account the degree to which constitutional provisions are interpreted contrary to the clear intentions of their drafters, or the clear implications of the language used in the provision. (See also Judicial interpretation)
4. Substance/democratic process- This dimension takes into account the degree to which judicial decisions make substantive policy, as opposed to acting to preserve the democratic political process.
5. Specificity of policy- This dimension takes into account the degree to which a judicial decision establishes policy itself, as opposed to leaving discretion to other agencies.
6. Availability of an alternate policymaker- This dimension takes into account the degree to which a judicial decision supersedes or inhibits serious consideration of the same problem by other government agencies. -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.