|
Activism is bad as DK on the last page, seemed to brush it off as something we don't like but is ultimately ok; I'm stating it is not good, I think you might have been reading too much into it.
As for the rest of it...
I think you answered your own question with your "defining the application of law" comment. Your examples really only apply to questions of government controversy, such as the lemon test. I'll agree that the judiciary can define the application of law, but that is bound by jurisdiction and how it relates to the government being a party to a controversy, something that is affirmed by word in the constitution. Defining application isn't the same as straight up rendering a decision that has no constitutional basis and it having pro-active repercussions as standing law. I think we pretty much agree on everything here, I think it is just a subjective pretext that we are both working with. Your subjective approach is that activism is derived from a subjective approach; my subjective approach is that it isn't.
__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.
|