Stephen Joseph

You have yet to explain how what the Supreme Court did was judicial activism, rather than judicial review, other than repeatedly defining judicial activism for us. Simply put, if you've actually made the connection between judicial activism and the Supreme Court's ruling, I sure don't see it. My argument style is simple: -state a premise. -provide facts. -explain how the facts support the premise. I've done this every step of the way, so I don't know why you're complaining. I'm not confusing anything. He's repeated tried to say that what the Supreme Court did was judicial activism, while I argue that its simply judicial review. In my opinion, the Supreme Court's decision should be satisfactory to either schools of interpretation given that the term "cruel and unusual punishment" is actually used in the 8th Amendment. Oh, I'M SORRY. I didn't see the sign on the board that said "lawyer's only". Like I said, my argument style is simple: -state a premise. -provide facts. -explain how the facts support the premise. That's more than the rest of you fuckers seem to be able to do most of the time. In my mind the judicial system( and what I call proper judicial review) is this: Hearing a case about an already established law. Then look at the spirit and original intent of the law. Decide on that basis where or not the case has merit I define judicial activism (aka judicial review)as such Hearing a case about an already established law. Decide on the merits of the law in society today. Decide on that basis where or not the case has merit. The former definition is strict constructionalism. The latter is loose interpretationism. The fact that you think there is a way to make a decision satistifying to both camps of action belies the fact that you do not understand the principles behind both camps. Given an action, you either explicate it to the letter of the law or reinterpret the law. There are times where both will agree. There are other times where this is not the case. You also have yet to acknowledge sitting down and reading what Scalia has to say (something Wildbomb did) and yet open your mind enough to understand what the other side is saying. I note: When presented with a good argument that disagrees with my own (see: wildbomb) I read it, understood it, argued it, realized we're at an impasse, and decided that agreeing to disagree was the best course. You continue to push your belief regardless, showing no acknowledgement of the other viewpoint.

Man, did you ever miss my point. Let me clarify. If the "will of the people" decided TODAY that it wanted slavery, the Courts would step in and overturn that law based on the 13th Amendment. The Constitution and its amendments exist not just to provide a blueprint of government action, but also to protect the rights of the people. According to the Supreme Court, allowing those executions violated the 8th Amendment. Thus, they not only have the duty, but the responsibility, to overturn laws which violate the Constitution and its amendments. That is judicial review. Yeah, that'd work today because there is an amendment explicitly against it. Not a terribly good example there. It's a great example. When the original governing documents were formed, one of its main clauses was "all men are created equal". That conflicted with the legal practice of slavery, and segregation, and over time both were struct down because in the hierarchy of the law, "all men are created equal" trumped existing practice. Amendments can be repealed. I cite the 18th and 21st. The judicial branch had no say in whether or not alcohol should be consumed. It was by the will of the people that it legislatively became illegal. Thus, the justice system operated with that being part of the law, until the will of the people overturned that law legislatively again. I only use this example to point out the process of what the law is. Law is neither good nor bad. It exists. The judicial system upholds that law to all. It is via the legislative/executive that we determine what is good and what is bad, what we outlaw and what we accept. The judicial system serves to clarify those laws. Really, if you're going to nitpick, nitpick with some oomf.

umm. yeah. i wondered about that due process clause too. oye indeed.

Correct. RJ (and much more eloquently Wildbomb) believe that the constitution and the laws can be amended by reinterpreting the intent. That is the 'loose interpretationist' argument. Vyce and I tend to be more of the letter of the law and very strict interpretation (no room for touchy feeling or what-not) That debate, (loose vs. strict) has gone on since the damn document was signed. RJ, why don't you a) read Scalia with an open mind b) read Wildbomb's posts and learn how to make an argument, and c) come back and offer something up other than blind obedience to dictum when you're ready.

Judicial review has always, always, always been about making the Constitution work for current events, dating all the way back to Marbury v. Madison, which essentially established the principle. (Justice Marshall was genius for this decision...) Re-examining the past decision is at least partially looking to see if the old theory of law is applicable in current circumstances. Although I do agree with you on your history of the 8th Amendment, I do not agree with your conclusion based upon it. Although there is precedent and history in both previous Supreme Court decisions and Common Law, the Supreme Court is free to determine whether or not the former theory of law is indeed constitutional. Hence why they are not legislating; they are interpreting the Constitution in a new way. The Supreme Court's job is not to merely uphold precedent and rule on cases based upon said precedent; rather, their job is to undertake both precedent and other theories of law in order to determine what is and is not constitutional. kkk: Well said, good sir. I don't know what the hell's going on anymore. The people running the radio station have really turned me off of it with the "new direction" their taking (read: shit on the news/sports department while slobbering all over the terrible morning show) I'm double-majoring anyways, so who knows. And if I manage to sue myself for libel, you'll be the first to know. Although technically, if it were radio it's slander...libel for television. Oh fuck, it's all the same damned thing. --Ryan There are two ways of interpreting the constitution (I remember from high school) 1) Strict constructionalist 2) Loose interpretationalist I guess I'm #1, and you're #2, and there's absolutely no way we'd ever agree on how the court handled it. So I will leave it at that, acknowledge your viewpoint while disagreeing with it. That being said, I think its much better to go bowling.

agreed

Ever heard of the 9th Amendment? Slavery was overturned because when the "will of the people" became strong enough to force a look at the issue, it was found to be in conflict with a particular clause of the constitution. In an alternative universe with a constitution that legally allowed slavery, such will of the people could only change the constitution via the amendment process. The judicial branch exists to clarify law. It is up to others to create it. So yes, if the constitution allowed slavery with the particular clause of all men being created equal., under the law it would be okay by the judicial system until such a time as the will of the people changed it.

--response to wildbomb With the understanding that judicial review is a good thing to have, what exactly is judicial review? What exactly is reinterpreting the spirit of the law? Such a question can only be answered by re-examining the past decision and interpretations of the spirit of the law with regards to this case (ex-ante evidence). Current events have no bearing on this interpretation, except to bring forth such a case for re-evaluation to the court. Certainly, if we look at the spirit of how the founding father's crafted the 8th amendment, and upon looking at that 8th's amendment origins in British Common Law, we're left to conclude that basing the decision to overturn the 'right' to execute those below the age of 18 is an incorrect application of the 8th amendment. That is not to say that I do not agree with the court's decision. I do. Our death penalty system as it currently stands is a joke. Any system that takes 20 years to process a death sentence...is a joke. But, the point that I think a few of us are trying to make is that, when there is a societal problem with a law currently existing within the spirit of the law, the course of action is legislative and executive, rather than judicial. Here, in this case, the judicial branch legislated. They did not clarify law, they created new law.

I am arguing against the concept of judicial activism. A law is made. People believe that this law is in fact contrary to already established law. That new law is reviewed by the judicial system to see if in fact it is contrary to the spirit of the law. you're confusing what is proper judicial action vs. proper legislative action

SJ is completely correct. And as a constitutional scholar yourself, I'm sure you're well aware of the constitutional conflicts that arise when the court oversteps its duties and takes it upon itself to do the job of the other branches of government. ::COUGH:: ROBOTJERK ::COUGH:: Read what Vyce said. Argue it, if you dare. There is a separation of powers for a reason. What the court did was not in its jurisdictional right. Not ONCE have I said whether I am in favor of executions or not, I'm simply pointing out how the system was designed to work. What Vyce said, is all that I am saying. It was, and is still, up to other branches to change the law. The Supreme Court clarifies the law.

Mikalah is like that hot girl at 16 who's about to become an 'expansion project in the worst way' unless she pays near constant attention.

Obviously, you didn't read my post. The interpretation that RJ gave on cruel and unusual is not the correct intpertation if you look at the origin of the phrase in British law, which is where we got it from.

You're a fool. Do you know the origin of the phrase 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment'? It stems from British 18th century law. Look it up. By that phrase, and they clarified it, cruel and unusual punishment was defined as "punishment forbidden by law". That is the correct interpretation of the 8th amendment. If anyone around here knows the constitution, it better darn well be me since I work for the Justice Department. Go back, and read Scalia's dissent with an open mind. Learn something. It was not the court's duty to abolish executions under the age of 18. That is a legistlature/executive branch issue. Not judicial.

Scalia is awesome, and deserving of alot of respect. I agree that the judicial court system of this country is slowly over-stepping its bounds. In the court, politics, morality, opinions, have no place. Decisions are made based on the cold facts and established laws. The court clarifies the law. Because the responsibility of AMENDING the constitution falls onto the legislatures of the states and the federal/executive branch. If you want to change the constitution, you do it there.

No. I won't.

I hate you all. A efficiency in No. Virginia costs 800...an efficiency!

Well, both versions failed, so no hike for awhile

Better? HAHAHAHA. Duke is about the most shallow of the big teams. They are not better than those two teams. Duke's a shell of what they were man. Wake and UNC are so much better than them this year. This Yellow Jacket heartily loves it when Duke loses. Go Tarheels.

really? I would guess Speeding car would be the "send as many shots as possible to put that fucker down" scenario. Especially seeing as it was night. While not being from the military, it seems common cop strategy is to shoot low to take out the tires, steering, and engine when faced with such a threat.

Kudos to you, man. Those things are a credit death trap to many.

Again, the minimum wage is a crock. You know what raising the minimum wage accomplishes? It raises all the boats of those people affected in the short-run. They gain. Then, two occurences. Employers substitute away from labor intensive methods to capital intensive methods. The rise in the cost of production completely offsets any gains of living standards caused by the wage hike. But then again, that's just economic fact.

The worst kind of evil is when you convince yourself that what you're doing is right and it's in everyone else's best interest that you do it. damn you. I still mark for Locke

Oh, and GGW cameras are good things to be around...but try and not drink so much that you do not remember it.

Yeah, Panama City is kinda ehhh... It'll be quite packed, so keep a 20 around for the bouncer (and know how to slip it to him), some alcohol/chronic for the girls. Oh, and they're loose as a goose as well, so like, wrap it up. If you don't get play, well, you just suck.

That's just taking one for the team Rudo-man! I do agree that he is positioning pieces (more like a game of othello)...but I think that's because of what he knows. But I completely don't view his actions as evil.