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.
No comments:
Post a Comment