--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In a message dated 2/24/2004 10:25:09 PM Eastern > Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > the precise roll of the judiciary was not well > spelled out by the > constitution. It was George Marshall who made the > court what it is by defining its roll > as the instituion that could rule on the > constituionality of laws. But you > display a bit of bias in your wording. When a court > rules in ways you - I mean the > royal here - don't like you accuse if of making law. > When it rules in novel > ways that you support it is upholding the > constitution. once again this is not > personal but a generic complaint about activist > courts. The Warren court was > activist but so has been the Rhenquist court.
Let me stand up for my own intellectual consistency here, at least. The Warren Court was activist, yet maintained a great deal of deference to the legislative branch. The Renquist Court has been less activist, I think, but far less deferential to the legislature. Yet Warren is (IMO, but in most people's as well) the second greatest of all Chief Justices, and Rehnquist (IMO, but not _just_ in my opinion) is the second worst. It's perfectly reasonable to decry activism of _some types_ while opposing other types of activism. I disagree with the way the Rehnquist court has acted, _even when, in many cases, I agree with the policy outcomes that its mandates have dictated_. I can't speak for John, but I think it's unfair to state as a blanket that he supports activism that he agrees with and opposes activism that he disagrees with without probing to see if there's a judicial philosophy underlying those positions that makes them consistent, instead of hypocritical. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want. http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
