|
but what constitutes activism or tyrrany is not independent of arguments about interpretations, arguments about whether these interpretations are or are not within the frame of the constitution.
both dk and mojo above act as though there is some agreement on the criteria that would be brought to bear on a given interpretation or series of interpretation independent of argument.
face it: the term "judicial activism" has been floated by a sector of the american right. there is no agreement about its signifieds outside that context.
generally, it is advanced along with arguments from some kind of strict constructionism--which at its most absurd is of a piece with the notion of "original intent"
the two claims work together in that the latter provides the criteria for making the former operative (that is, the charge of "activism")---in the cases where all elements of the argument are in place, then the claim can be evaluated coherently because you have both the claim of "activism" and the "relative to what..."
separating the two and treating "judicial activism" as though it has an independent content seem to me unworkable.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|