Abortion would be a good example, but the judiciary does not need to draft or pass legislation in order to create new law. They simply make a ruling, like Roe v Wadenvxplorer said:
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Abortion would be a good example, but the judiciary does not need to draft or pass legislation in order to create new law. They simply make a ruling, like Roe v Wadenvxplorer said:No, your point was that judges are creating law. Please show me evidence of the judiciary drafting and passing legislation.
MachZer0 said:Abortion would be a good example, but the judiciary does not need to draft or pass legislation in order to create new law. They simply make a ruling, like Roe v Wade
As long as they stick to the Constitution and existing lawNathan Poe said:So... Judges shouldn't make rulings?
That would be creating new lawAnd Roe v Wade did not "create" a new law, but extended one -- In this case, extended the "Right to Privacy"
That's quite a stretch to reasonably infer such a right to privacy. Wasn't it referred to as penumbra? Inferring something to extend new rights is the activist deed of creating new law(Which may not be explicity mentioned in the Constitution, but could be reasonably inferrered from the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth amendments) expressed in Griswold v Conneticut (1965), and determined that the decision to terminate a pregnancy also fell under this right.
That's an activist judgeWell, judges don't write law it is true. But judges interpret the law...In order to make it say what it doesn't say
It's not about me tulc. I told you that beforetulc said:MachZero, would you have a problem with "bubble zones" if Phelps and the prolifers both had to abide by them?
tulc(back from the wilds of Michigan!)
MachZer0 said:That would be creating new law
That's quite a stretch to reasonably infer such a right to privacy. Wasn't it referred to as penumbra? Inferring something to extend new rights is the activist deed of creating new law
Laws don't grow naturally. The problem of inferring by judges is that their inferences may not be correct. That's why they should stick to what the law actually says.Nathan Poe said:No, it's deciding that an existing law applies to a certain situation. Not making a law, but deciding how it should be enforced.
Again, the laws grow to keep up with real life -- not vice versa.
In 1965, 7 out of 9 Reasonable SCOTUS judges inferred just that. Or do you disagree with Griswold v Connecticut?
Agreed. Miranda is an example of leftist judicial activismAs long as you're railing against Judicial activism, it should be noted that Miranda v Arizona (1966) is a more blantant example of what you would call "Making new law." Is Miranda a Leftist tool as well?
Nonsense. The judiciary struck down an existing Texas law in Roe v. Wade.MachZer0 said:Abortion would be a good example, but the judiciary does not need to draft or pass legislation in order to create new law. They simply make a ruling, like Roe v Wade
When existing laws are struck down, new laws are essentiallu created, based on the political ideology of the court making the ruling. When courts make decisions based on pemumbra or on international laws, they are acting outside the Constitution in an activist modenvxplorer said:Nonsense. The judiciary struck down an existing Texas law in Roe v. Wade.
You've repeatedly made this "creating law" erroneous claim for as long as I can remember. I ask you for evidence, and you spout "Roe v. Wade" as though this supports your claim. You're wrong. Courts do not and cannot make law. That's a fact. Please get over it and stop repeating false claims.
The ACLU defends the Constitution as they interpret it based on their political ideology. As someone pointed out earlier, when has the ACLU defended someone's gun ownership rights? Yhey are heavily into undermining the free exercise of religion in America as well.MezzaMorta said:The ACLU defends the constitution and civil liberties of Americas. They do not do so for any political ideology, they do so for anyone in the USA that is subject to actions that violate our constitution or individuals civil liberties.
uhmmm when did the NRA defend someones right to peacefully protest outside an abortion clinic?The ACLU defends the Constitution as they interpret it based on their political ideology. As someone pointed out earlier, when has the ACLU defended someone's gun ownership rights?
Example?Yhey are heavily into undermining the free exercise of religion in America as well.
The NRA doesn't defend people or groups in lawsuits. They are not a law organizationtulc said:uhmmm when did the NRA defend someones right to peacefully protest outside an abortion clinic?
Plenty. This one is recent with the ACLU is objecting to a Katrina memorial which will be placed on private landExample?
The NRA doesn't defend people or groups in lawsuits. They are not a law organization
MachZer0 said:Laws don't grow naturally. The problem of inferring by judges is that their inferences may not be correct. That's why they should stick to what the law actually says.
Agreed. Miranda is an example of leftist judicial activism
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?