Here are a couple of questions I submit to you all for comment.
1. There seems to be a consensus that judicial restraint is good and judicial activism is bad. But not everyone agrees what these terms mean. What do you think? What is judicial activism and why is it bad? When should courts exercise restraint?
2. Justice Brennan reads the Constitution as protecting liberty by means of "majestic generalities" such as the "ideal of human dignity." Assuming human dignity is a constitutional ideal, is it one capable of application? How does a Court know what human dignity means in the context of constitutional litigation? Is this any different from reading the Constitution as a general directive to judges to decide all important public policy issues based upon their own subjective preferences (their own view of what "human dignity" means)? Is this consistent with the Constitution's explicit recognition of the most important freedom of all, the freedom of a people to participate in democratic self-government through law?
No comments:
Post a Comment