We will also be highlighting one organization every two weeks that has made an impact in social change around the world. If you would like to nominate a group feel free to post a comment including their website address. Check our blogroll for a quick link.
This weeks organizational spotlight is: Youth With a Mission (YWAM)
Just for fun: Every week we will also be uploading a portrait of a famous philosopher, social scientist, political scientist or psychologist in the author’s avatar section. See if you can be the first one to identify the picture. Please post your response in the comments section
Mystery Man?
“I FOUND THE MYSTERY MAN!! the mystery man is Adam Smith and hes a scottish moral philosopher and pioneer of political economics . He died july 17, 1790.” Congratulations Jennifer!!!! As for the significance of the Hint: He developed an economic model called “The Invisible Hand” which is taught in most economic classes today.
27 Comments
Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI
Leave a comment
This weeks featured discussion is on constitutional law.
The question is: What can we do about judicial activism and the psychological factors behind personal judgment and constitutional judgement? The human factor plays a large role in the supreme court, when do supreme court justices cross the line in terms of individual conviction and constitutional absolutes?
I thought this would be an interesting topic since we are studying the constitution and then the supreme court. This subject has a lot of web related material and opinions so you should find some interesting stuff out there to write about.
Have fun!
I FOUND THE MYSTERY MAN!! the mystery man is adam smith and hes a scottish moral philosopher and pioneerof political economy. he died july 17, 1790.
I FOUND THE MYSTERY MAN!! the mystery man is adam smith and hes a scottish moral philosopher and pioneer of political economy. he died july 17, 1790.
Congratulations Jennifer!!! You win!! 5 bonus points!!! and unfathomable fame and fortune!!!
I see your excitement by the 2 posts..you wanted to make sure we got it..Nice Job!!
Taken from Focus On The Family:
Judicial activism is the term used to describe the actions of judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and “legislate” from the bench. These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs.
The proper role of a judge is to be an umpire. A baseball umpire calls balls and strikes, but doesn’t change the rules of baseball in the process. Applying the analogy, a judge (umpire) applies the law (rules of baseball) to the facts of a particular case (a pitch, a runner tagged out, a fly ball caught or missed) to arrive at a judgment (strikes, outs, foul balls, etc.).
Judicial activism occurs when a judge wants to change the rules of the game, a constitutionally granted responsibility that belongs only to the legislature.
Information taken from Focus on the Family and our Government book:
The only way to get people off of the judge’s seat, is to impeach them. Judges are appointed for life, unlike our representatives in Congress and Legislation, that is where the problem starts. When people who were not elected start making the rules, the “we the people” part is left out. They become no better than a dictator because there are no repercussions for their actions like how an elected representative would lose their re-election.
Judges and members of the Supreme Court cross the line when they begin making laws from their own rulings. The act of making a law is the power of the Legislative Branch, not the Judicial. Whenever they pass judgment on someone, not in accordance to what the Legislative branch has authorized, they are in violation and should be held responsible.
I read a book called “The Appeal” by John Grisham a year or so ago and it delt a little with this. In the end, the judge had to decide weither or not to vote a certain way since something like the issue of the lawsuit happened to him. I think personal expirences would influence a judge maybe too much and cause them to be bias. Like if a judge was pro-life then his teenage daughter got pregnant with a illegit baby, then he turned to be pro-choice, it would clearly show that he was stepping over the line.
Oh btw, thanks for putting me on your blog roll. I wasn’t really serious about it being there. I was just giving you a hard time. But if you have the chance check out my newest post. I really need some support. Thanks.
It is the duty of the Supreme Court Justices to strictly interpret the Constitution the way it was meant without their personal ideologies/political affiliations.
However, beliefs, politics, ideologies, etc. will always affect how one makes their decisions. Also, when it comes appointing a new justice, the President would probably want to appoint someone who reflects their views on certain issues. Everyone interprets things differently and sees things in a different light, but that isn’t to say that the justices shouldn’t look at cases without being objective.
The argument of judicial activism is one that will probably always exist, and I think a lot of it has to do with having different view points. What one considers a fair interpretation may be seen as activism by someone else.
WELL, I don’t exactly get the question but I will try my best =D~
Judicial activism is basically the fact that judges go beyond the constitution.
I think that they do so because they will try to incorporate there own ideas and perspectives of the constitution. Which off course , is something we can’t avoid because as people we all hold our own beliefs and opinions. As people we tend to make decisions that will profit ourselves and do what isn’t necessarily best for others or even what is right morally but we can’t stop human nature. In order to avoid this, they need to keep an open mind and put away their own personal thoughts and really try to focus on what our founding fathers wanted for our country and people.
nice..you say you don’t understand the question yet answer it perfectly..how strange
Judicial activism is the belief that judges should go beyond the constitution to change societal behavior.
I agree with Honmaster’s discussion about judicial activism. “The proper role for the judge is to be an umpire. They call balss and strikes but doesn’t change the whole rule of the game.” And that’s should be the way the judges role in the constitution. But we can never tell what’s right for us and that’s the judge role goes beyond the constitution. Maybe it would be the right thing or not who knows. So I guess i would agree to whatever the issues is about.
wow so deep i don’t know if my answer fits to the question…
Judicial Activism is the act of going beyond the constitution and regulating laws that a Judge feels best suits the social environment we live in. I think the rules are written and we should abide by them as is, it doesn’t seem fair for a man to just start making up his own laws and put them into effect. I agree with the Honmaster a Judge should be like a Umpire or a Reff who sees the game through and plays as fair as possible without changing the game
I know this is off-topic but Coach I think you should show this video during class.
Video made me lol
Hmm…this is a difficult one…
Well, of course we all see things differently, becuz we all have different views on what is fair and just. We cant help but to go with what we think is right instead of what would be more coherent to the constitution. The only thing that we can really do is to just stay open minded and not let what we want sway our decision making. We also have to just take a look back in time and realize what we were trying to accomplish wen the Constitution was adopted. There isnt much we can do really.In addition, I believe that supreme court justices cross the line when they totally disregard everyone else and just look after themselves instead of the majority. Especially, if its something that shouldnt be compromised on, when what needs to be done is clear, yet they refuse anyway.
The “balls and strikes” analogy is an excellent way to look at things. It just happens to be that the strike zone seems to change.
There are lots of things that contribute to the way a person thinks and what he believes, like the way he was raised, his education, books, friends, parents, etc. And pretty much everyone thinks that his own personal beliefs are the absolute best way to go, right?
Well I think that Supreme Court justices feel the same way. So when they create new or amend existing constitutional rights, maybe, in their own minds, it’s a great idea that will make the world a better place. That may be true, but it’s not their place to do such things, and they’re just overstepping their boundaries. The Constitution doesn’t include making/changing rights in their job descriptions. Un-cool, guys.
Unfortunately, I don’t think there’s really much of anything that we can do but criticise the unjustness of it in blogs..
ohhkayy, so basically, judicial activism is when they go beyond the constitution and make it so that our rights fit them. i agree, people are raised a certain way and have their own idea on how they wanna do things, and dealing with the constitution, they will try to make it so that all the rules can benefit them. I dont think this is fair at all. they may have some type of leadership role in this world, but that doesnt necessarily mean they can take charge and do whatever THEY wanna do. They have to take it into consideration on what is best for eveyone, and seriously think out what kind of rules we need to have a better environment. like someone else said, they need to put their personal thoughts away and start thinkin about what is best for us and our country..
rules were made to keep this country and maybe even others from being chaos, not for leaders to take charge and do whatever they want and make unnecessary rules that only benefit them of fit their needs..
so in order to solve this issue, anyone who has some sort of leadership role should really think about what is best for everyone and not just themselves…
Lol, yay I learned a new term!
Judicial activism…basically a judge’s selfishness. Okay okay. Traditionally, its legislature’s job to change the laws and when the judicial branch decides to ignore their limitation, and take their personal ideas into prioritized consideration for the concerned subject of law, its called judicial activism.
An amendment that has somewhere along the lines of “judges shouldn’t hold their position for life” might probably help….the problem is people only get elected because of political party endeavors and popularity….”We the people” can’t DRASTICALLY do anything about it besides complain…..and send them lots of hate mail. OH YAH. THEY SHOULD MEDITATE ON THE BIBLE. I definitely know that that will change their perspectives VERY MUCH.
—But…you know……
So judicial activism is unconstitutional…. I don’t think judicial activism is all that bad. It all depends on what subject is concerned.
wow i really liked matts analogy it was a great example. Anyways i think that judges who overstep their bounds should be impeached, because again like matt said they dont really have to worry about repercussions otherwise and that can get to a persons head. I mean think about it if u have the power to influence things in your favor you probably will. This goes back to our past discusions people are fundamentally flawed and sinful, so they’re most likely to do things that will help themselves out.
We all should know by now that the Judicial activism is basically the fact that judges go beyond the constitution.
Its true thatJudges have the power to let things slide or to punish people under the fullest extent of the law. Its all about how each individual interprets the laws and or guidelines which our founding fathers have set fourth upon us. Another example besides the judges ones is how police officers enfore the law. If a police officer pulls over a person for speeding and the police officer is in a bad mood or the driver of the car is giving him attitude its just human nature and common sense that he will slap you the ticket for whatever violations you have committed because one he is obligated to do so because its the law and his job and two because you gave the police officer attitude he will retaliate by giving you tickets. Now, lets say another person gets pulled over under the same circumstances he is really nice respectful and doesnt give the officer lip hes most likely not going to get the ticket. Was the officer obligated to give the person a ticket under the law? Yes. But did he? No, because he has the power to do so. He has that power to bend the rules and let people off as he pleases. He determines whether or not the offense was a bad one or not so bad. One police officer may think it was a minor offense while the other might think it was major so they will carry out their dutys going by what they believe in and not so much how the laws were meant to be enforced. I dont know if i answered this topic correctly but I tried. haha.
the judges always has the athority over all. its up to them whos gulilty and not guilty. they have their own ideas of the constitution. just like you and me we are all diffrent. God made us all unique. we have all have a diffrent feeling on the constitution. some of us think the constittion is bad for the country and other think diffrently. a lot of people just think of themselves before others,and yes sometimes i do but im trying to think of others before myself. thats why america is so currupt cause everyone is being selfish. when they are in court they just have to put asside their thought and make a better choises for america.hope i answerd it right? now gotta do your outline!
i found articles on this topic which can found here —> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200507/ai_n14684098
and i believe that judicial court does cross the line with some punishments. idk if this would be right, but should a drug dealer get the same punishment as a murderer. even though dealing aint good, its just its not as bad as killing someone. k im out shoooooooooooootz!
i agree with pretty much everyone on this topic..I dont think we really can do anything about it…But ya what stephan said about the police, u probably could just give them donuts and your off the hook. As for judges i really dont think you can do anything about it, except hope that they are being fare, and making the right choices…p.s stephans dad is a cop and he always lets you go, 4 a chocolate rainbow sprinkled donut.
Judicial activism is a misuse of judicial power. I like stephans example about polices, im gonna give another example a judge, they determine if your guilty or not, or how long you stay in jail. Also the judges decision is in their own decision on how they feel about the crime they done.
Judicial activism is used to describe the actions of judges who go beyond their constitutionally prescribed duties of applying law to the facts of individual cases, and “legislate” from the bench. These judges create new constitutional rights, amend existing ones, or create or amend existing legislation to fit their own notions of societal needs.
i found this article about what we can do about judicial activism. the website thingy is http://www.family.org/socialissues/A000000657.cfm
ohh heyy! i got the same info and website as matthew(: haha.
this website says that judicial activism is currently involved in the Senate conflict over the president’s judicial nominees. this conflict exaclty is over what type of judge to appoint to the federal bench. hmm. i really dont know what we can actually do about it though. but all i have to say is that they better be making the right choices.
Hard topic this week. We don’t really have any ideas to kick the junk ones off their seat.