That's the key issue when it comes to allegations of judicial activism. On what grounds

activism is where the court determines that somewhere in the constitution is buried the idea of a guaranteed right to abortion, which the states cannot override

In Brown v Board of Education, the law as legislated was for segregation. This is cited as an example of Judicial Activism, but if segregation is unconstitutional, why is this activism?

that is a case of more ambiguity I think

it really depends if separate can be equal

and that is up to interpretation

Are you guys familiar with Torres vs Madrid? Uncivil Law and Rekieta covered the oral arguments the other day. They are still deciding what is seizure .. That’s why I’m not sure that originalists/textualist interpretation is fully possible.

I don't mind the judges making such judgement calls (hopefully based on evidence)

nope

where true ambiguity exists, it is the role of the court to come up with something consistent

this isn't the "judicial activism" that is where people are at odds

I'm way out of my league on this one.. I know that even the church wrestled with this for centuries. Back then, they determined that a person didn't become a person until their soul entered the body. They determined that this happened at the quickening. The first time a mother felt the baby move.

an example of future judicial activism would be if somehow the SC decided that "healthcare was a constitutional right" and came up with some crazy interpretation to support this

I am not making a position on abortion, but anyone who ever read the constitution knows sure as hell it isn't a constitutional right

@realz I’m not for activism either. Just think people use the concept of originalism too much to back whatever they want to say. I just wish they were honest

Originalism doesn't back whatever you want to say it backs what someone else said when they wrote the law

well that can't be helped; people claiming to interpret it textually but in bad faith? you can't prove what is going on in their minds. We have to assume judges judge in good faith, or at least the majority do.

either way I've been listening to this without realizing it the entire time

and I didn't find anything remotely objectionable

I don’t think it’s in bad faith. I just think people don’t think about their biases enough and pretend they are unbiased

@aiva, you just advanced to level 3!

again, this can't be helped

I agree @realz

I don't mind if a leftist judge leans left on his rulings as long as he is doing a good faith interpretation; sure his biases might make him take left leaning choices on ambiguities

his/her

the biases can't be helped

There are 9 justices, I imagine one can figure out how to check the other's bias. I think the odds of em all having similar biases is pretty low

We could also ask the question of whether bias is even desirable

(I don't think anyone thinks that Roe v Wade was a good faith interpretation)

@Elzam that’s why you need diversity of opinions. So they can check and challenge each other

I have heard that even RGB didn't like Roe V Wade

she thought it should have been an amendment

(or a federal law)

Well as far as the courts concerned, I don't want a diversity of opinion on what the constitution is.

Are things assumed to be a privilege until legislated as a right? Does a right have to be granted as an amendment?

Old but still relivent https://youtu.be/46qpyvD-IPk

@WatchingYouDaily, you just advanced to level 4!

Well what is a right? Does right mean you're entitled to it as supplied through taxpayer funding.

well I am saying what if the SC decides that FoS means you need to be able to speak and not being healthy doesn't enable speech or somesuch nonsese

(there are probably better amendments to use for this)

Though iirc it's 10 that says the rights are extended to the people