GREAT Chevron cite, dude! I love the definition.--AmesG 18:17, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
I disagree with the definition. Roe v. Wade is "established precedent" now, but I wouldn't say that anyone who ever overrules a case (particularly that case) or who issues a ruling that appears to be contrary to it was a "judicial activist" To me, the core of "Judicial Activism" is inventing rights that are not established by the text of the Constitution or other law at issue, but that the judge thinks is "good policy" or otherwise thinks "should be" the law. I would say that overruling or ignoring precedent that itself established such a right is simple correction, rather than a new example of activism. JesusSaves 07:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
It's hard to tell because the piece is so poorly written, but is this actually saying that racial segregation was "an integral part of society"? Dadsnagem2 13:11, 14 May 2008 (EDT)
- It was, at the time. It doesn't matter if racism is right or wrong, it's just the judiciaries place to say. It's the legislatures. If the court had ruled differently, chances are that interracial marriage would have been made legal and racial discrimination and segregation prohibited by state laws and an act of congress - by the will of the people as expressed by their representatives, not the thoughts of judges, however well-intended. And if they hadn't been able to redefine marriage for legal purposes then, it would be much harder for them to do so now. NewCrusader 17:58, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
Is it just me, or is this article pretty obvious parody? TGeary 22:19, 30 October 2008 (EDT)
- I believe the current version of this page is blatant liberal parody, and I'm going to work on rewriting it some. TGeary 22:31, 2 November 2008 (EST)
I noticed that examples of Supreme Court cases were presented without citations and explanation on why they were examples of judicial activism. I will be removing the examples section as they lack proper citation and evidence.