Jenksismyhero Posted June 27, 2008 Share Posted June 27, 2008 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 03:04 PM) I totally agree that you're right on the usage of the phrace "Judicial Activism". The thing I find interesting is that by overturning precedent and creating a new right, I think this ruling is just about as "Activist" as you could get using any definition other than "left-leaning". I don't really care that it is, because I view the constitution as a living document that doesn't have static meanings (That's part of its strength) and thus, as society changes, the courts should allow their interpretations of it to change also. But if you're going to define judicial activism as a problem, then here's a classic example of it. What precedent did it overturn? This is the first time the Court has ever squarely addressed the issue of the true meaning of the 2nd amendment and whether it affords an individual the right to carry a gun. Any previous decision that's come before they Court has been tossed aside on technicalities or other non-issues or the Court has basically said "uhhh, no thanks we don't want to rule on that now, let the states decide." If anything this is the exact opposite of judicial activism and precisely what judicial interpretation should be. Scalia started by analzying the words in the Constitution, ruled on what they meant both individually as words, as clauses and then as a complete phrase, and then used that ruling to analyze the DC law. Judicial activism = Lochnerism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 01:27 PM) What precedent did it overturn? This is the first time the Court has ever squarely addressed the issue of the true meaning of the 2nd amendment and whether it affords an individual the right to carry a gun. Any previous decision that's come before they Court has been tossed aside on technicalities or other non-issues or the Court has basically said "uhhh, no thanks we don't want to rule on that now, let the states decide." If anything this is the exact opposite of judicial activism and precisely what judicial interpretation should be. Scalia started by analzying the words in the Constitution, ruled on what they meant both individually as words, as clauses and then as a complete phrase, and then used that ruling to analyze the DC law. Judicial activism = Lochnerism Simple question then...where is the "Right to self defense" (and that's a quote from Scalia's opinion) in the 2nd amendment? That is the specific right that Scalia stated in his opinion he was protecting with that ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EvilMonkey Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 08:52 PM) Simple question then...where is the "Right to self defense" (and that's a quote from Scalia's opinion) in the 2nd amendment? That is the specific right that Scalia stated in his opinion he was protecting with that ruling. Life & liberty. Can't have either if you are dead. Well, i guess you could have liberty in death, but you probably wouldn't enjoy it much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2008 Share Posted June 28, 2008 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 27, 2008 -> 07:52 PM) Simple question then...where is the "Right to self defense" (and that's a quote from Scalia's opinion) in the 2nd amendment? That is the specific right that Scalia stated in his opinion he was protecting with that ruling. Still, there wasn't any precedent overturned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts