Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Dave85, post: 1913534, member: 3946"] First of all, I prefer to think of myself as apolitical at this point in my life. My problem with politics is it seems to me that it has practically nothing to do with my life. In my current thinking, culture is a more important part and influence in my life. Playing cards with a group of friends will have a greater impact on the happiness in my life than anything that is done in Washington DC. So to be honest with you, what the judges do on the Supreme court seems kind of meaningless to me. That said, if you google "what is meant by the term activist judges" and read some of the articles you will get a better argument than I can present for the liberal point of view. My comments to you had more to do with my understanding of the limitations and nature of the English language. Language is inherently ambiguous. Each person has their own interpretations of what is important and what words mean based on each person's life experiences. To be honest with you, I see no problem with what the judges do from either side of the political spectrum. Each judge brings their own life interpretation to law. Law has nothing to do with absolute truth because language lacks precision. The problem with all law is it lacks accuracy and completeness. So judges are needed to make rulings about how the law is going to be applied and what the law means. You seem to think language is some kind of act of God and that language is perfect in its construction. And therefore, language is not open to interpretation. I cannot hold to that way of thinking. The English language is full of limitations. Again, I'm not an expert in the arguments for or against activist judges. Here's an except from one of many articles written by people who have spent much more time thinking about this topic than I have: [INDENT][SIZE=4]"To conservatives, activist judges are those who permit or compel activity in which the opinion of conservatives can only be done in the legislative branch," Judge Napolitano said. "To liberals, activist judges are judges who prevent the government from doing the things the Legislature wants to do." Many legal experts agree that accusations of judicial activism are nothing more than political name-calling, and that judges are supposed to interpret the law and rule according to their own interpretations. So the core of the argument is the role of the judiciary. The framers of the Constitution recognized the importance of the judiciary branch; it differs from the other two branches in several significant ways. For instance, Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. The reasoning behind lifetime tenure is that sometimes justices must make decisions that are unpopular or counter to the will of the majority. Because they are not elected, they are free to uphold the law in spite of potential political fallout. [/SIZE][/INDENT] [SIZE=4][URL='https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/activist-judges-why-are-they-creating-such-a-stir']Activist Judges: Why are they creating such a stir?[/URL][/SIZE] [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?