Talk:Judicial restraint

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article seems to me to oversell the originalist/textualist viewpoint. The claims of minimalism should be incorporated, though the originalist/textualist claim to the title of judicial restraint should also remain. I will modify this page to incorporate minimalist thought (without disturbing most of the originalist/textualist stuff) soon if I do not hear objections. KrazyCaley 23:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bullshit Article

The Founders were not more conservative than Americans today, they were more libertarian than politicians today.

Judicial restraint is often used to protect the laws passed by living-document politicians. Judicial activism can be used just as easily to return to the literal text of the Constitution, and in my opinion, the courts need to be more active in their use of Judicial Review to overturn unconstitutional legislation. We have too much Judicial Restraint, defering to Congress when Congress is wrong. Stare decisis has its role, but should not be invoked to protect Marshall's misinterpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause a second longer. We need more Judical Activism as a means of returning to smaller, constitutional government.

Let's stop conflating judicial restraint with support for the literal text of the Constitution when so often it is used to protect unconstitutional laws and bad presidents.

Thanks.

[edit] Reply to above post

Let's try and remember that this is not a talk page for your opinions but one to help others make the page and article a better one than it already is... Please do not put your opinions unless they have to do with what should be changed on the page. Thanks Jgrizzy89 22:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)