supreme court interfear all public issue and some gov policy like schdule-9 .hust like cng matter ,kaveri jal vivad.so many matter .what do u think supreme court is eight or not?
2007-02-18 17:05:05 · 9 answers · asked by raj 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The way you frame the question makes it obvious the answer you have already reached. What some people call judicial activism, others call reasoned judicial thinking. The judicial branch exists for a reason - to check and balance the other two branches of government. For this reason, it should have the ability to oversee every action of government. If not, power would coalesce in one branch and inevitably lead to corruption.
Claims of judicial activism are not by any means new. Similar claims were levied against court decisions ending racial segregation or requiring police to inform suspects of their rights, but now those decisions are considered landmark cases, not activist rulings.
2007-02-18 17:29:59 · answer #1 · answered by James 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can disregard the answer of the first answer, they obviously have an agenda in addition to a severe mental illness.
Judicial activism is anathema to a Constitutional republic. We try to safeguard statutory law by having panel of judges where a majority rules so that no one jurist can have an impact.
However, courts will rule upon the cases that are properly presented to them. Cases must make their way from lower courts to the court of appeal to a state supreme court before coming to the Supreme Court. Even then a case must be certified before it will be heard.
Our system has evolved from 3,000 years of Judeo-Christian legal ethic and derived from English commonlaw. Is it perfect? No. Is it the best system in the world? Absolutely.
Now if we can just figure out how to take the right to vote away from incredibly stupid and unqualified people, we will never have to worry about a traitorous coward like GW Bush ever getting elected for anything other than dogcatcher.
2007-02-19 01:22:41 · answer #2 · answered by gw_bushisamoron 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our Constitution works on checks and balances theory. If any one wing errs, it is for the other wings to correct the erring wing. Now, the Executive is found wanting in so many respects in effective implementation of the law. The Judiciary is right in stepping in. So also, when the Legislature is on the wrong side, it is open to scrutinise their Acts under the power of judicial review. But, the judiciary must guard itself against the mistake of usurping the powers of the other wings of the State. Their judicial review is a corrective mechanism and a substitute for Executive or Legislative functions.
2007-02-19 01:24:44 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Judicial activism is clearly wrong, and it is the reason we have abortion in the first place. Back in the early 70's, when the courts decided women had the right to abortion, not ONE state legislature or citizens would have agreed to it. People and legislators should make the law, not the courts. Gay rights groups particularily, are trying to use the courts to force their laws down everyone's throats, without consent by the people of the state or the legislative. Governnment is by the people, for the people. Judges are to enforce the laws, not make up their own ones.
2007-02-19 01:17:46 · answer #4 · answered by ace 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Liberal activist judges are trying to destroy America by legislating from the bench. Fortunately Bush has appointed some real judges like Alito and Roberts that will govern by the constitution.
Janice Rogers Brown is the next obvious nominee for Bush, another dagger in the hearts of liberals.
2007-02-19 01:09:17 · answer #5 · answered by x 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Eh?
The Supreme Court, as a byproduct of decisions, can affect social change. It may not be intentional, but it is unavoidable unless they refuse to hear certain cases.
2007-02-19 01:16:42 · answer #6 · answered by Griff 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Supreme court is NOT interfering in any matter.
Only dukhi person goes to Court. Harrassed person has to right to go to Court.
Court has to listen, it has to decide. All has to accept.
Court is not doing anything at its own.
Roads in my area are very bad since long. Local councillor, Neta is not taking care. I am forced to go to higher authority, Court. Court will listen my problem and will decide. It will be pinching for councillor/ MLA. If I not go to Court, it will be pinching for me. We go to Court for justice. Court is not coming to my home for 'justice at door'.
2007-02-19 01:26:43 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is a check on unscrupulous political decisions.
2007-02-19 08:34:15 · answer #8 · answered by hanvis 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
. It is totally correct.People don't have respect to any body but judiciary.
2007-02-19 08:24:18 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋