Hahaha

@james j it is where a judge says "I will make the judgement that results in the best '_moral_' outcome instead of making a judgement on what the constitution or law says"

(then they "interpret" the constitution and law around that)

it is basically an explicit injection of politics into the legal system

@Doc to be clear, that wasn't my issue though. It was much more silly than that.

@Zuluzeit No such thing. Every topic worth honestly approaching another human with always touches on existence, if you peal it.

Can’t people just using tactics to say this is or is not constitutional with their own interpretations @realz I think having a dogmatic constitution could be just as much of a problem

@Doc rather, less directly threatening.

@Zuluzeit Indeed.

That is what psychological defenses are for.

Existence in itself is an extremely uncomfortable topic.

Yes, it could be worse than Judicial Activism: Judicial Activism without admitting it. This would just be bad faith judgements. Of course this is possible, and our entire System depends on this not happening in the majority. However, I can't help _secret_ judicial activists who interpret things deliberately toward their goals. What I _can_ do is eliminate those that _tell_ me they are bad faith

@Doc There was something about a professional and compensated person that lent promise to the work. It wouldn't have been the same with doing the exact same thing with any number of friends.

@Zuluzeit A professional has less agenda, yes.

Friends usually have one.

So answers will be more...well...trustworthy in a strange way.

Indeed. That's how it felt.

I think criminal intent and criminal behavior can adapt. If we come across some crimes that the constitution gets in the way of effectively stopping then we have a situation where society can’t adapt to new threats @realz

We can. We can adjust the constitution. Using judicial activism to circumvent this it to circumvent the constitution.

HAL and Eagle Eye...a perfect barringer of political justice. Perhaps the two should select for optimal and legitimate future candidacy.

@Doc Anyway, that was my year of exposure to psychology. Hardly a large sample.

Right but adjusting the constitution would mean not being a dogmatic constitutionalist

Also, no one cares when judges "adapt" when it is for something non-partisan. Judicial Activists gleefully want to do this for partisan issues.

Lol HAL 2024.

Not really; the constitution allows for its adjustment.

it basically requires 2/3 agreement

i.e something has to be bipartisan

Unless the court is unbalanced

Uh no

That's literally not how it works

2/3 of judges or like congress or something

I am talking about amending the constitution, what does that have to do with the court

The court has no impact on it's contents

Oh

@Zuluzeit well, bedtime for me now. You have a nice one!

Nite

@Doc I bid you the same. Sleep well.

as it stands right now, if the SC justices go rogue in full bad faith, there is NO check on the SC

I don’t know what this is yet but I think we need it

(except packing them or impeaching them?)

All hail section 230