In this video footage US Justice Stephen Breyer provides details on the historical origin of the phase 'judicial activism', as well as some ideas as to the context in which the context has been applied.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Anthony Lewis on the history of judicial activism
In this video we have some comments by Anthony Lewis on the history of judicial activism.
He appears to dislike the term 'judicial activism', and prefers the term 'bold' or 'courageous' rulings, but in essence there is nothing inherently wrong with the word 'activism'. There is nothing wrong with judges making rulings based on personal values; afterall it would be desirable that judges values are consonant with the facts of reality, and that the laws of the country are correspondingly so as well. The alternative 'conservatism' is really nothing more than 'rationalism'; that is, the assertion of a claim based on floating premises with lack grounding by either the coherence or correspondence theories of truth.
He appears to dislike the term 'judicial activism', and prefers the term 'bold' or 'courageous' rulings, but in essence there is nothing inherently wrong with the word 'activism'. There is nothing wrong with judges making rulings based on personal values; afterall it would be desirable that judges values are consonant with the facts of reality, and that the laws of the country are correspondingly so as well. The alternative 'conservatism' is really nothing more than 'rationalism'; that is, the assertion of a claim based on floating premises with lack grounding by either the coherence or correspondence theories of truth.
Retiring Justice Sandra Day on Judicial Activism
The judiciary is clearly dismayed by criticism of judges for engaging in 'judicial activism'. These comments from the retiring Justice Sandra Day:
Thursday, August 13, 2009
A voice for judicial activism in the USA
Judge Napolitano is the youngest life-tenured Superior Court judge in the history of the State of New Jersey. While on the bench from 1987 to 1995, Judge Napolitano tried more than 150 jury trials and sat in all parts of the Superior Court -- criminal, civil, equity and family. He has handled thousands of sentencings, motions, hearings and divorces. For 11 years, he served as an adjunct professor of constitutional law at Seton Hall Law School, where he provided instruction in constitutional law and jurisprudence. In this interview he provides a strong and animated argument for judicial activism....
See Fox News for a complete profile.
See Fox News for a complete profile.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
About Judicial Analytics
Our Role
Judicial Analytics is dedicated to assisting complainants and solicitors bring about successful court proceedings in the highest court in their respective jurisdiction. We provide assistance by helping solicitors develop ethical arguments to support their cases. The problem for most solicitors is that they don’t have the philosophical training to mount an ethical defence for their clients through the court system. There is a tendency for the solicitors to accept two premises - that:
1. Parliamentary legislation has primacy over Common Law.
2. The judiciary's sole concern is compliance with the law as opposed to correspondence with the facts of reality
The problem is that the judiciary and solicitors in each jurisdiction tend to neglect the opportunity to argue for a ‘natural law’ interpretation of their respective constitutions. Every country has its own constitution which establishes a legal framework. Regardless of the framework, most are based on the British model, with some variations. We will argue that there is an opportunity to defend legal cases in the highest courts on the premise that "the judiciary is obliged to hold a rational standard of value" as opposed to simply complying with "the rule of law". Our value proposition is that we provide a ‘natural law’ interpretation of the law, as well as helping solicitors develop objective arguments to cater for the specific values of particular judges.
Our services
Judicial Analytics provides a number of services to prospective complainants and solicitors seeking to take action through the highest courts in any Western-style legal jurisdiction. We provide the following:
1. Relationships with solicitors in each country whom work with us to fight the current arbitrary statutes enacted by legislators. We provide objective arguments to allow the judiciary to adopt progressive interpretations of the Constitution and case evidence.
2. We are developing a database to allow solicitors to profile judges around the world allowing solicitors to achieve the best possible outcome.
3. We develop arguments to support cases where ‘rule of (statutory) law interpretations would otherwise lead to an unfavourable outcome.
4. We act as an advocacy for judicial activism to ensure the objective protection of rights under natural law where current statutory law is ambiguous.
There is of course no possibility of guaranteeing results. The fact remains that the judiciary is only accountable for its rulings after the fact, and sparingly so. This remains one of the greatest shortcomings in our legal system – its lack of respect for objectivity, which can only reduce the standing of judges which are perceived to offer some semblance of ‘objective interpretation’.
Who we can help
We can only help people who hold 'natural law' principles (whether implicitly or explicitly) and apply them to the specific context in which those laws apply to them. We cannot help claimants defend illegitimate acts. We can only assess the merits of a case on a case-by-case basis.
For further information on our objectives refer to our report on global efforts to sponsor judicial activism.
Judicial Analytics is dedicated to assisting complainants and solicitors bring about successful court proceedings in the highest court in their respective jurisdiction. We provide assistance by helping solicitors develop ethical arguments to support their cases. The problem for most solicitors is that they don’t have the philosophical training to mount an ethical defence for their clients through the court system. There is a tendency for the solicitors to accept two premises - that:
1. Parliamentary legislation has primacy over Common Law.
2. The judiciary's sole concern is compliance with the law as opposed to correspondence with the facts of reality
The problem is that the judiciary and solicitors in each jurisdiction tend to neglect the opportunity to argue for a ‘natural law’ interpretation of their respective constitutions. Every country has its own constitution which establishes a legal framework. Regardless of the framework, most are based on the British model, with some variations. We will argue that there is an opportunity to defend legal cases in the highest courts on the premise that "the judiciary is obliged to hold a rational standard of value" as opposed to simply complying with "the rule of law". Our value proposition is that we provide a ‘natural law’ interpretation of the law, as well as helping solicitors develop objective arguments to cater for the specific values of particular judges.
Our services
Judicial Analytics provides a number of services to prospective complainants and solicitors seeking to take action through the highest courts in any Western-style legal jurisdiction. We provide the following:
1. Relationships with solicitors in each country whom work with us to fight the current arbitrary statutes enacted by legislators. We provide objective arguments to allow the judiciary to adopt progressive interpretations of the Constitution and case evidence.
2. We are developing a database to allow solicitors to profile judges around the world allowing solicitors to achieve the best possible outcome.
3. We develop arguments to support cases where ‘rule of (statutory) law interpretations would otherwise lead to an unfavourable outcome.
4. We act as an advocacy for judicial activism to ensure the objective protection of rights under natural law where current statutory law is ambiguous.
There is of course no possibility of guaranteeing results. The fact remains that the judiciary is only accountable for its rulings after the fact, and sparingly so. This remains one of the greatest shortcomings in our legal system – its lack of respect for objectivity, which can only reduce the standing of judges which are perceived to offer some semblance of ‘objective interpretation’.
Who we can help
We can only help people who hold 'natural law' principles (whether implicitly or explicitly) and apply them to the specific context in which those laws apply to them. We cannot help claimants defend illegitimate acts. We can only assess the merits of a case on a case-by-case basis.
For further information on our objectives refer to our report on global efforts to sponsor judicial activism.
Establishment of Judicial Analytics
Judicial Analytics was established in July 2009 in order to assist legal advisors and complainants to develop ethical arguments to mount court cases which challenge the contemporary interpretation of Western constitutions.
The decision by our team to establish Judicial Analytics as a business unit arose in response to the declining quality of Western governance. Voters have traditionally relied upon our government to protect our freedoms. In recent years the trend has become clear. Western governments are intent on entrenching and expanding their own powers at the expense of voters. Shortsighted business leaders are all too willing to comply with government's stipulations in order to win any short-sighted financial concession.
I say corporate leaders are short-sighted because they fully embrace the Keynesian philosophy of government stimulus believing that its 'good for business'. What they neglect to realise is that:
1. Governments require arbitrary powers to execute the program, giving government the power to enslave.
2. Governments are about as useful as desert plains when it comes to managing the economy, or any facet of government
3. Government stimulus is not sustainable. The only reason it might appear so is because every correction requires an injection of new equity resulting in dilution in the value of your money.
The signs are there for everyone to see. Inflation in prices. Look at the actual prices, not the distorted measure (i.e. The Consumer Price Index) provided by governments. Another sign is the fact that workers are being asked to defer retirement from age 65 yo to 68-70yo. The argument necessitating longer working hours is that a higher proportion of the population is senior citizens, and that we are living longer. This is true enough but the expansion of productivity would be more than enough to adjust for these factors if government wasn't stiffling economic growth. There are several ways that government stiffles economic growth:
1. Under provisioning for good regulation (justice)
2. Over privisioning for bad regulation (taxation, silly arbitrary laws)
3. Over-spending on welfare which does not reward good behaviour
4. Under-spending on Capacity building - which would be better undertaken by the private sector.
The role of Judicial Analytics is to provide support to solicitors and complainants who want to take action against any Western government. We provide a range of services to assist the client achieve fair or just outcomes from their legal action. We confine our participation to High Court or Supreme Court action, as this is where ultimately Constitutional matters are resolved. More about Judicial Analytics in our next blog post.
The decision by our team to establish Judicial Analytics as a business unit arose in response to the declining quality of Western governance. Voters have traditionally relied upon our government to protect our freedoms. In recent years the trend has become clear. Western governments are intent on entrenching and expanding their own powers at the expense of voters. Shortsighted business leaders are all too willing to comply with government's stipulations in order to win any short-sighted financial concession.
I say corporate leaders are short-sighted because they fully embrace the Keynesian philosophy of government stimulus believing that its 'good for business'. What they neglect to realise is that:
1. Governments require arbitrary powers to execute the program, giving government the power to enslave.
2. Governments are about as useful as desert plains when it comes to managing the economy, or any facet of government
3. Government stimulus is not sustainable. The only reason it might appear so is because every correction requires an injection of new equity resulting in dilution in the value of your money.
The signs are there for everyone to see. Inflation in prices. Look at the actual prices, not the distorted measure (i.e. The Consumer Price Index) provided by governments. Another sign is the fact that workers are being asked to defer retirement from age 65 yo to 68-70yo. The argument necessitating longer working hours is that a higher proportion of the population is senior citizens, and that we are living longer. This is true enough but the expansion of productivity would be more than enough to adjust for these factors if government wasn't stiffling economic growth. There are several ways that government stiffles economic growth:
1. Under provisioning for good regulation (justice)
2. Over privisioning for bad regulation (taxation, silly arbitrary laws)
3. Over-spending on welfare which does not reward good behaviour
4. Under-spending on Capacity building - which would be better undertaken by the private sector.
The role of Judicial Analytics is to provide support to solicitors and complainants who want to take action against any Western government. We provide a range of services to assist the client achieve fair or just outcomes from their legal action. We confine our participation to High Court or Supreme Court action, as this is where ultimately Constitutional matters are resolved. More about Judicial Analytics in our next blog post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)