Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
when you decide for political reasons of your own to call them such.
neither category has anything like a definite content (judicial activism, tyranny) in this context.
|
I would have to disagree immensely. Judicial activism can, and should, be defined as a judicial decision that is one that you don't like, but isn't in direct opposition to the constitution or a specific law that is within constitutional boundaries.
Judicial tyranny should be defined as any judicial decision that is in direct opposition to the constitution or declaring constitutionality of a law that is obviously not constitutional.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
oresumably, for you, dk, any legal action taht endangered your right to have as many guns as you like would be both.
|
While that would certainly be the case, I am also referring to such things like Kelo v. new london which is in direct opposition to the 5th amendment, or 'sneak and peek' search warrants which are a complete violation of the 4th amendment. Even the most recent 9th circuit decision regarding the 1st amendment regarding a student wearing an anti-gay shirt with a decision that the 3rd circuit, facing a similar issue, ruled as unconstitutional.
When does it become judicial tyranny and what do we do about it?