7 comments

  1. Good one. The problem with the judicial branch is every power they have they gave themselves. The constitution says nothing about judicial review. Yes activism is a problem. There are judges that disregard the law are poor judges. However, if the law is silent they should have a say as long as it’s constitutional.

    Congress can regulate the Supreme Court yet they don’t. Judges don’t need lifetime appointments it very undemocratic by nature.

  2. Sorry Sal, but I don't believe you've made this clear at all. If I was to ONLY view your video, I would conclude that both the pro and con side of the argument were based on constitutionality. Neither side is 'activism'. And "personal views" is activism? EVERY view coming from the bench is a personal view on existing laws and the constitution.

    The argument you should have included for the 'restraint' side is this: Under the existing laws, no citizen was denied their right to vote and have their vote counted; thus there is no constitutional breach.

    Though the so called 'activism' side could argue that a system where the weight of any citizen's vote is eroding to the point of verging on no value, essentially takes away their right to vote.

    IMO, here is a much better explanation of the difference between activism and restraint.
    http://www.differencebetween.net/language/words-language/difference-between-judicial-activism-and-judicial-restraint/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *