NAVIGATION MAIN MENU

COMPENDIUM LIBRARY/TWITTER MONITOR
VIDEO GALLERY
Economic News
Newsbrief Archives
Democrat Leadership Twitter and Realtime Feeds
Cabinet twitter and realtime feeds
North America weblog
International weblog
Democrats twitter directory
Latest Government Jobs and Public Tenders
Jobs Matrix
Global Travel Information
Pop Entertainment Forum
Start Portal


Please make a donation to support upkeep of the daily news journal, back archives, twitter feeds and the compendium library.










How to judge the Roberts Supreme Court« Thread Started on Ju

Daily newsbrief journal for July 2007, also see http://www.usdemocrats.com/brief for a global 100-page perpetual brief and follow twitter @usdemocrats


How to judge the Roberts Supreme Court« Thread Started on Ju

Postby admin » Sat Jan 28, 2012 2:14 pm

How to judge the Roberts Supreme Court« Thread Started on Jul 7, 2007, 11:26pm » --------------------------------------------------------------------------------How to judge the Roberts Supreme CourtTo ask how activist it was is useless. It's wiser to review why the court was either deferential or assertive.By Kermit Rooseveltread at source> http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0706/p09s01-coop.htmlPaul LachinePhiladelphia - With a flurry of 5-to-4 decisions handed down at the end of June, the Supreme Court served notice that things are changing at One First Street. We should pay attention.The Court is powerful and important. Its ability to strike down state and federal laws means that it sets the government's boundaries. It also plays a leading role in articulating America's constitutional commitments. It gives substance and definition to the majestic generalities of the Constitution, phrases such as "due process" and "equal protection." In a real sense, the subject of Supreme Court decisions shows who we are as a people, what values we hold dear. With so much power concentrated in the hands of so few, citizens must be able to evaluate the court's performance.Activism vs. fidelity is flawedConventional wisdom focuses on a distinction between what we could call activism and fidelity. Faithful judges (the good ones) apply the law regardless of their own views. Activist judges (the bad ones) rule based on their own preferences. This model of activism and fidelity is the one Chief Justice John Roberts invoked in his 2005 confirmation hearings when he promised to be an umpire, not a player. Unfortunately, it is useless in evaluating decisions because it offers unrealistic caricatures on both sides. True activists don't exist; all judges believe that they are faithfully applying the law. But objective umpires don't exist either, because the Constitution does not provide clear answers in hard cases. That is what makes them hard. Consider some of the most controversial decisions from the just-concluded term.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 82092
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:00 am

Return to July 2007

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron