Ubertuber
Quote:
|
I propose that we undertake to discuss what exactly judicial activism would be and how it relates to the legitimate business of the courts. In particular I'd like to see a cogent defense of said activism (if we can even figure out what it is) and the idea that the Consitution is a document that is open to change.
|
The Constitution is open to formal change as evidenced by it's amendments. I believe that "judicial activism" is meant as a negative term that refers to an informal judicial reinterpretation of the meaning of the constitution or the framers' intent. Unlike formal amendments to the constitution, these reinterpretations address the meaning of the constitution.
It appears to me that the accusation rests on whether an individual agrees with the interpretation or not. The reinterpretation of the right to privacy has been the primary source of charges of judicial activism. Before the privacy cases, it was perfectly constitutional for a state to forbid married couples from using contraception; for a state to forbid blacks and whites to marry; to abolish abortion. Because of judicial changes in the interpretation of the Constitution, the nation's outlook on these issues changed. That does not mean that everyone agreed with those changes.
I am firmly against the legislation of morality in any form, so I have no argument with any of these changes per se. I do have a problem with the apparent federal interference in state affairs. I hope that there is someone here that is versed on the argument or "reinterpretation" SCOTUS made to supercede state law.