http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtZCRvNCUDk&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pup2teJtJAA&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=N-RYtrJEAL0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEntVPddsMw&feature=fvst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjaB3cxH-XE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72vgAEX66M&feature=related
25 comments:
I believe justice's should be allowed to interpret the law the way they think it should be interpreted.
All these questions make me ride the fence, but it does need to be a mixture. It can't be too strict because not everything needs this strictness, on the other hand, you cannot be too much of an activist. You need activism to make precedents but don't get lost in activism and I also agree with Spencer.
i think justices are only able to base their opinions based by the guidelines set in lace by the founding fatehrs in the constitution but we really cant tell what the fathers meant unless we were there
The job of the judges of the Supreme Court is to interpret and execute the law based on the constitution. The constitution was left purposefully vague so that future Supreme Courts could interpret the law according to the times. There needs to be a balance between judicial restraint and judicial assertiveness. The Supreme Court should not be legislating laws, that is not their job. There is a separation between branches for a reason, and we need to stick with the system the Founding Fathers laid down for us.
i think that justice should be used the way it was supposed to be used in the first place
There needs to be a balance of both. I agree with Abby, the Constitution is vague so that as times change, it can be interpreted according to how things are at a certain time. It is not the job of the judicial brand to make laws, but sometimes it is necessary.
I think judges should fallow the law but also not be to hard cause not everything is as bad as people make it to be.
I think it needs to be both. I mean they can be strict but not to strict. So I agree with spencer and cassie that justice should be allowed to interpret the law.
the judges should just judge on laws and not outstep their bounds
I think some should be and some shouldn't be because then their is different views and it would make it a better system for everybody.
I think that there would best be a blend of both activism and restraint. Restraint in the way that judges should be cautious to strike down a law, but should not be hesitant about it if there is a need.
The constitution was left vague so that future courts could interpret the law the way they thought best. Being judicially active allows for better decisions from the Supreme Court.
I believe there should be a balance between the two, possibly 4 strict judges and 4 not strict judges, with 1 who can go either way, that would be the ideal balance. Since this will probably never happen the judges should be constitutionalists, after all, that is their job: to interpret what the constitution says.
Judges follow the law like they think it should be! They interpreted it like they pleas.
The Constitution is vague for a reason. Justice's can interpret the law as time goes on and things change. Therefore, I would have to agree that a combination is best.
I believe they need to have a foundation in the constitution so that when they interpret the law they at least stem from something that is solid enough that people will go with it.
After a brief discussion and listening to other peoples comments, I believe Judges need to interpret what the constitution says. Just let it be.
It should be both in a way. There has to be some restraint, but then again, it should be an activist point-of-view
Justices should be able to be activists when congress is not acting on a law
I believe that there should be both type of judges on the supreme court, that way you would get both views and could come up with the best decision.
I believe there needs to be a balance between Judicial restraint and Judicial activism. Too much restraint could end up hurting our system and being too much of an activist is giving the Judges the power to write their own laws persay. The Constitution was intentionally left vague so that it could be interpreted as the times changed, but it also doesn't need to be stretched so that everyone is happy. There has to be compromise in order for things to work efficiently.
No, because the constructional are enough to them self...... I don't really know what the question talking bout so yea..... Lol
I also think there should be a balance between the two. I do not think judges should be extremely strict and
I think they should be able to interpret the Constitution.
I agree with spencer. Justice should be allowed to interpret the law.
Post a Comment