Saturday, June 30, 2007
Recent Supreme Court Decisions
It appears that the recent decisions of the Supreme Court involving affirmative actions in schools in getting quite a bit of media attention. Emily Bazelon argues in Slate Magazine that Chief Justice Roberts has been a far more conservative justice than anticipated. E.J. Dionne argues in the Washington Post that the conservatives have now become judicial activists instead of being strict constructionists. The Economist argues that the Supreme Court has moved to the right, but that the case for alarm is inflated. Dennis Byrne in RealClearPolitics argues that the court upheld the principle of equal justice before the law. Jeffrey Rosen in Time Magazine argues that the Supreme Court is essentially tacking right on issues where a majority of voters agree with the court, and that there is little real danger of Roe v. Wade being overturned.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
what exactly defines an "activist judge"? when you call someone an "activist judge", it must say something about your politics and your perception of the judge's political views.
I assume "activist" means that you intend to overturn precedent.
ok...Conservatives talk a lot about their opposition to "activist judges", but want to overturn Roe v. Wade...so, are they pro-activist judge?
Usually I think conservatives have used the term for the often 'broad' interpretation of the constitution vs. their 'narrow' reading of the document.
The problem is that the current mix makes for many 5 - 4 rulings that don't make for very stable law -- mix up the court slightly and the rulings go different ways, as we have seen with some of the recent rulings where similar issues in the past have been ruled differently.
I guess it's all how you interpret it. Some conservatives believe that abortion is not a constitutional issue and that therefore the legality of it should be determined by individual states. I agree with this argument. Therefore, they would say Roe v. Wade was settled improperly and that it should be overturned. They would say this is not activism, but strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution. But I agree with Keith's comment about the 5-4 rulings.
so overruling an "activist" precedent is not activism?
From a certain perspective...
Post a Comment