Process vs. Outcome

matclone · 05-27-2008, 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by UGLY

By contrast, in the sixties decisions were made that basically led to the end of legal racial discrimination. Should those decisions have been made? Or should racial prejudice - which clearly had a majority of votes in the South - been allowed to remain the rule of law?

I agree with you that the decisions put an end to segregation and racial discrimination, [i]but don't you think that we would have come to those outcomes without judicial activism and using the amendment process.[/I] I say that we would have and thus saved the integrity of our constitution and balance of power between the three branches of Gov. Just because we want a desired outcome doesn't mean we weaken our ability to enforce our laws and give any part of gov. more power than they are awarded by the constitution.

Probably not. In the civil rights era, many people made this very argument (yours) over and over. Nothing really changed. That's when people started protesting.

I abhor this term judicial activism, as I believe it means whatever you (and all the pundits) want it to mean.

"Weaken our ability to enforce laws" is sheer rhetoric. I'm not persuaded, but if you're in a room of people who all share the same point of view, I guess it might fly.

Tight-Waist · 05-27-2008, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by matclone

I abhor this term judicial activism, as I believe it means whatever you (and all the pundits) want it to mean.

This is the basis of why "judicial activism" or seeing the constitution as a "living breathing document" as progressives like to term it is wrong. Because it ends up meaning whatever THEY want it to mean.

FloggingSully · 05-28-2008, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by UGLY

Like I said the outcomes may have been desirable but we have opened ourselves up to judicial activism whether it would be conservative or liberal. In an essence we have allowed this action to weaken our constitution and give the judicial more power than they should have. If we want our laws changed we need to use the process and vote on constitutional amendments like the law says.

Ugly, it seems to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you're associating judges making unpopular rulings with judicial activism or judges making laws. These judges' job isn't to do what popular and/or represent the will of the people, it's to interpret the law. The judges in California interpretted the law, they didn't change the law or make a new law, they decided that based on the current laws in the state of California it was illegal to not recognize gay marraige.

matclone · 05-28-2008, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by FloggingSully

Ugly, it seems to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that you're associating judges making unpopular rulings with judicial activism or judges making laws. These judges' job isn't to do what popular and/or represent the will of the people, it's to interpret the law. The judges in California interpretted the law, they didn't change the law or make a new law, they decided that based on the current laws in the state of California it was illegal to not recognize gay marraige.

Exactly. And hence is the value and need for an independent judiciary.

UGLY · 05-28-2008, 08:26 PM

I dont want to get hung up on the California case too much. I started this thread because of the recent decision in cali. has sparked debate about the role of the judicial system. Still no one has answered the question that I pose. So please aswer the question and we will discuss it . THe california case IMO in is not so important other that the fact that the court went against what the voters wanted and I believe that the issue should be decided by the people.

FloggingSully · 05-29-2008, 11:23 AM

To answer your original question: "What is more important in our society the process in which we make or change our constitutional laws or does the outcome trump the process?"
-I think the process is the most important thing, we have laws and a system and they should be followed. However, I think the cases you mentioned are all examples of the system/process working the way it should.

Originally Posted by UGLY

ITHe california case IMO in is not so important other that the fact that the court went against what the voters wanted and I believe that the issue should be decided by the people.

-Just to reiterate, the courts purpose is not to do the will of the people. That's not what the founding fathers intended. The court's job is to interpret the law, and make rulings based on what the law says not based on what the people want.

Tight-Waist · 05-29-2008, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by UGLY

I dont want to get hung up on the California case too much. I started this thread because of the recent decision in cali. has sparked debate about the role of the judicial system. Still no one has answered the question that I pose. So please aswer the question and we will discuss it . THe california case IMO in is not so important other that the fact that the court went against what the voters wanted and I believe that the issue should be decided by the people.

The ends do not justify the means.

matclone · 05-29-2008, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by UGLY

I dont want to get hung up on the California case too much. I started this thread because of the recent decision in cali. has sparked debate about the role of the judicial system. Still no one has answered the question that I pose. So please aswer the question and we will discuss it . THe california case IMO in is not so important other that the fact that the court went against what the voters wanted and I believe that the issue should be decided by the people.

Your question: "What is more important in our society the process in which we make or change our constitutional laws or does the outcome trump the process?" which you modified by discussing the Calif. and two federal cases, including the rhetorical claim that the SCt justices did not follow the constitution, contains a foregone conclusion ("does the outcome trump the process?). So I don't know why you even ask if you already have the answer. Are you looking for someone to agree with your conclusion?

If I were to respond to your original question, without your modifying explanation, I would say you are talking about two different things: the process by which we modify the constitution, and our interpretation of the constitution. Your question only makes sense if you presume that these two different processes are at odds and that the interpretive process is flawed. Several people here have questioned that presumption.

ban basketball · 05-29-2008, 02:06 PM

Would these things fall under "original intent?"

How much money that you can give to a candidate is a form of free speech
That Supreme Courts should stop a vote count in a Presidential election
That Habeas Corpus should be suspended while our country is in a foreign war
That we should not follow international laws (Geneva Convention)
That our own government should be planting stories in Iraqi newspapers to advance our own cause
That government not obtain search warrants to eavesdrop on us
That protest provides "aid and comfort to our enemies."

Chance174 · 05-29-2008, 03:08 PM

How much money that you can give to a candidate is a form of free speech
I agree this shouldn't be happening and it is against the constitution in my opinion
That Supreme Courts should stop a vote count in a Presidential election
A little more complicated than you try to make it. Just admit it man HE LOST.
That Habeas Corpus should be suspended while our country is in a foreign war
Yes that usually happens in war...but i like how you put foreign in there. Now correct me if I'm wrong but haven't the last 5 wars at least been foreign wars.
That we should not follow international laws (Geneva Convention)
Correct me if I'm wrong but haven't a lot of the individuals responsible for this been repremanded? If you are referring to water boarding aren't they still determining if this falls under those?
That our own government should be planting stories in Iraqi newspapers to advance our own cause
Have you studied any history? If so you would know this is a common practice throughout history. Oh and not just by the US.
That government not obtain search warrants to eavesdrop on us
This is also more complicated than you try to make it out to be. I personally am on the fence with this one.
That protest provides "aid and comfort to our enemies."
are you trying to say it doesn't?

Process vs. Outcome

Politics & Religion