Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6745)	7/9/2003 11:19:01 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Seems to me that what we call judicial activism is very much a function of whether or not we like the results I see the temptation to look at things that way but I really don't think I do that frequently. I can think of issues where I would like things to work a certain way but would still call any court decision imposing my opinion an example of judicial activism. I would argue that affirmative action was Constitutional back when minorities were conspicuously denied equal justice. It is the job of the Court to protect the rights of the weakest among us whether society likes it or not. I disagree. I think the courts job is to interpret the law and the constitution. If neither regular law nor the constitution supports an idea, even an idea that would increase justice, then it is not the courts job to impose the idea. It is both just and usually good policy in a practical sense to protect the rights of the weakest, but it only becomes the courts job when the rights are contained in the constitution or in the law. I don't see how racial preferences for historically disadvantaged races are some sort of constitutional right, or even a natural right for that matter. If affirmative action is unconstitutional now it would also be unconstitutional then. I not only see government impose affirmative action as unconstitutional but I also see it as being in direct violation of some civil rights laws. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (6745)	7/9/2003 1:20:39 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

I agree with you about O'Connor's predeliction to substitute political for legal thought in her decisions. It makes understanding the precedential value of her decisions very difficult. But I wonder a bit about one thing you said: " It is the job of the Court to protect the rights of the weakest among us whether society likes it or not." That is a good political thought, but where in the Constitution do you find this to be the role of the Supreme Court?