[robertpaulsen]

"No. Judicial activism means misrepresenting the Constitution, not defying precedent."

And that "precedent" was based on what? It was based on a previous intepretation of the Constitution.

Defying precedent, therefore, is defying a previous interpretation. Now, if that previous interpretation were "wrong", then isn't judicial activism actually correcting the wrong, resulting in a true (or truer) representation of the Constitution?

The bottom line? Yes, it is judicial activism. But Ken H would say that it's good judicial activism because our guy is the one doing it.

[inquest]

Now, if that previous interpretation were "wrong", then isn't judicial activism actually correcting the wrong, resulting in a true (or truer) representation of the Constitution?

That question contradicts itself, given how I just defined "judicial activism".

[tpaine]

robertpaulsen wrote:


Defying precedent, therefore, is defying a previous interpretation. Now, if that previous interpretation were "wrong", then isn't judicial activism actually correcting the wrong, resulting in a true (or truer) representation of the Constitution?
The bottom line? Yes, it is judicial activism.

_____________________________________


Lordy is there to be no end to your pseudo-legalistic, anti-constitutional nitpicking?

[Ken H]

Now, if that previous interpretation were "wrong", then isn't judicial activism actually correcting the wrong, resulting in a true (or truer) representation of the Constitution?

The bottom line? Yes, it is judicial activism. But Ken H would say that it's good judicial activism because our guy is the one doing it.

You ought to stick to citing case law, IMO. You tend to stumble when you get off script and have to apply your own reasoning.

Judicial activism is when judges don't follow the Constitution, but instead substitute their own biases. IOW, the living, breathing algore Constitution.