presidential interview of nominees
schweber at polisci.wisc.edu
Wed Jul 20 10:18:06 PDT 2005
At 08:37 AM 7/20/2005 -0400, RJLipkin at aol.com wrote:
> I think it obvious, but nevertheless worthwhile pointing out,
> that the term "activism," if it has any serious meaning at all, depends
> on a correct theory of constitutional interpretation, or one deemed
> correct by the speaker.
Personally, I find it useful to think of "activism" in terms of three
1. the willingness (or eagerness) of a judge to overrule the judgment of a
legislature (in any of several ways)
2. the willingness (or eagerness) of a judge to depart from past precedent
3. the willingness (or eagerness) of a judge to depart from the "correct"
mode of constitutional interpretation. The last one is certainly dependent
on a prior judgment, but the first two are at to at least some degree
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof