• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Judicial Activism Vs. Judicial Restraint

Judicial Activism Vs. Restraint

  • I believe in Judicial Activism.

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • I believe in Judicial Restraint.

    Votes: 16 66.7%
  • I think it should be decided on a situational basis.

    Votes: 7 29.2%

  • Total voters
    24
Judicial Activism- A judicial philosophy in which judges make bold policy decisions, even charting new constitutional ground.

Judicial Restraint- A judicial philosophy in which judges play minimal policy making roles, leaving that strictly to the legislatures.

What do you guys think?

There should be no such thing as judicial activism. A judge's job is to rule based on the best understanding of the Constitution, based on the intent of the founding fathers. That's literally a judge's job. If they are stepping outside of the philosophy of originalism they should be fired.
 
Please cite the exact law made from the bench that you are referring to.

Please cite where exactly in the law it states that they are required to rule on laws that they feel are unconstitutional. That is the job of the Supreme Court. Barring any law from going into effect is activism, especially when often it is not even presented for argument in court.
 
If a judge considers an Executive Order to be illegal, can he/she in all conscience ignore it? Or are they bound by duty to rule it illegal?
Or do you think judges are unable to put aside their own 'agenda' and rule strictly on their interpretation of the law?
Looks to me like, in your system, the judges are all that stands between you and dictatorship. If you can't trust a judge to be bound by the law, how could you trust a president?

If what you are claiming is true, why are so many of the lower court decisions reversed or rejected by the Supreme Court, whose job it actually is to make such rulings?

How come so many judges seem to constantly make their ruling according to their political leanings?

Answer those questions honestly and you will have the answers to your questions.
 
Judicial Activism- A judicial philosophy in which judges make bold policy decisions, even charting new constitutional ground.

Judicial Restraint- A judicial philosophy in which judges play minimal policy making roles, leaving that strictly to the legislatures.

What do you guys think?

First of all, it is good that you included the "it depends" option. Otherwise this poll would have been worthless.

Second, I am a strong supporter of the Fourteenth Amendment, which clearly states that the states, not just the federal government, must not suppress the rights of their citizens. By precedent, it can fall to the courts to defend these rights.
 
If what you are claiming is true, why are so many of the lower court decisions reversed or rejected by the Supreme Court, whose job it actually is to make such rulings?

How come so many judges seem to constantly make their ruling according to their political leanings?

Answer those questions honestly and you will have the answers to your questions.

I don't know what 'so many' is. How many lower court rulings reversed is 'so many'? And maybe a Supreme Court Justice knows more about how the law should be interpreted than a circuit court judge. Just because they disagree doesn't mean one of them is corrupt.
And you'd have to show me that 'many judges constantly make rulings according to their political leanings.' If that's true, there's something wrong with the system.
 
I don't know what 'so many' is. How many lower court rulings reversed is 'so many'? And maybe a Supreme Court Justice knows more about how the law should be interpreted than a circuit court judge. Just because they disagree doesn't mean one of them is corrupt.
And you'd have to show me that 'many judges constantly make rulings according to their political leanings.' If that's true, there's something wrong with the system.

Try reading the news of judicial reverses to answer your question. It is very enlightening.
 
Back
Top Bottom