RB Scott wrote:
I'm growing weary of the tiresome assumption that "activist
judge" is a negative description. By definition any appellate
judge worth his gavel is an "activist judge" because he is often
asked to interpret constitutional law.  I daresay that one man's
"activist judge" is another's "strict constitutionalist."  I
recommend the following: instead of tossing about meaningless
catch phrases, spend more time explaining what you mean,
demonstrating why a particular court's decision violates the
spirit and intent of the U.S. Constitution.

An "activist" judge is one that overturns precedent, common law, and common sense in his interpretation of the Constitution. In doing this he establishes precedent which is not the job of a judge. A judge is to judge, not create new law. --JWR


//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
--^----------------------------------------------------------------
This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

For Topica's complete suite of email marketing solutions visit:
http://www.topica.com/?p=TEXFOOTER
--^----------------------------------------------------------------






Reply via email to