Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - interpretations, stare decisis, and judicial activism/tyranny

dksuddeth · 12-11-2007, 11:31 AM

Something that was said in another thread got me to thinking about how constitutional law and cases get dealt with by the judiciary and I always wondered what people really think in regards to the topics in the subject.

I've heard many times by many people that the constitution must be interpreted as it relates to the current time period and socio-political situations and I wonder if these same people would willingly accept that ideology when it concerned parts of the constitution or bill of rights that they cared more about than others?

Stare decisis, or to stand by things decided, is a policy that is almost always adhered to by our courts, generally for good reason as it prevents extremely radical change that could cause more upheaval than it benefits the people, however, with the few times that stare decisis is abandoned in order to overturn previous decisions, say for example roe v. wade or brown v. board of education, would people here consider that a flagrant case of judicial activism/tyranny on all cases, some they care about, or wouldn't care at all?

judicial activism/tyranny. This has been discussed in the past on a few threads, but my personal opinion is that activism from the judiciary is nothing more than a term used to define a decision that you didn't like, though falls within the constitutional framework, whereas judicial tyranny is obvious subversion of the constitution and undermines the power of the people by limiting rights and freedoms or outright doing away with them. A classic example of judicial tyranny would be wickard v. filburn, where the USSC suddenly decided that a farmer growing his own wheat, on his own land, for his own consumption falls under congressional regulation via the commerce clause, no matter how slight the intrastate commerce is. Would people readily accept these kinds of decisions or produce a tremendous outcry like that of kelo v. new london?

If people readily accept these constantly changing rules of law by the judiciary, do we really have a set in stone constitution or is it nothing more than the rights we have at any given time as decided by 9 judges?

12-11-2007, 11:31 AM	#1 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	interpretations, stare decisis, and judicial activism/tyranny Something that was said in another thread got me to thinking about how constitutional law and cases get dealt with by the judiciary and I always wondered what people really think in regards to the topics in the subject. I've heard many times by many people that the constitution must be interpreted as it relates to the current time period and socio-political situations and I wonder if these same people would willingly accept that ideology when it concerned parts of the constitution or bill of rights that they cared more about than others? Stare decisis, or to stand by things decided, is a policy that is almost always adhered to by our courts, generally for good reason as it prevents extremely radical change that could cause more upheaval than it benefits the people, however, with the few times that stare decisis is abandoned in order to overturn previous decisions, say for example roe v. wade or brown v. board of education, would people here consider that a flagrant case of judicial activism/tyranny on all cases, some they care about, or wouldn't care at all? judicial activism/tyranny. This has been discussed in the past on a few threads, but my personal opinion is that activism from the judiciary is nothing more than a term used to define a decision that you didn't like, though falls within the constitutional framework, whereas judicial tyranny is obvious subversion of the constitution and undermines the power of the people by limiting rights and freedoms or outright doing away with them. A classic example of judicial tyranny would be wickard v. filburn, where the USSC suddenly decided that a farmer growing his own wheat, on his own land, for his own consumption falls under congressional regulation via the commerce clause, no matter how slight the intrastate commerce is. Would people readily accept these kinds of decisions or produce a tremendous outcry like that of kelo v. new london? If people readily accept these constantly changing rules of law by the judiciary, do we really have a set in stone constitution or is it nothing more than the rights we have at any given time as decided by 9 judges? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."