Activist Judges Activist judges are a serious problem in the United States. Instead of simply applying the laws of the land—laws which have been made by duly elected legislators—they choose to apply unsupportable interpretations of the law. This is especially bad when it comes to the Constitution or the powers of the federal government…
The eventual plan fell through. The case was an unmitigated disaster and is a great piece of evidence suggesting courts should mind their own business. The case hinged on the definition of “public use” in the fifth amendment of the Constitution. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a powerful dissent in which he took the majority to task: “Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.” This dissent says it all. The unintended consequences of the activist judges' rulings are unfair and unjust. The problem with activist judges is that they undermine our democracy. They are not elected officials and are not responsive to the public. They live in an abstract world where they rarely see the consequences of their actions. Unfortunately, President Obama is keen on selecting more activist judges to sit on the bench of the Supreme Court. Kanner, Gideon. "Kelo v. New London: Bad Law, Bad Policy and Bad Judgment". The Urban Lawyer 38 (2006). ...
Cite this document
(“Supreme COurt Kelo v. The city U5 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/other/30953-supreme-court-kelo-v-the-city
(Supreme COurt Kelo V. The City U5 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 Words)
“Supreme COurt Kelo V. The City U5 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 250 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/other/30953-supreme-court-kelo-v-the-city.
This essay analyzes the civil liberty as an offshoot of natural liberty for one to do as they please is not restricted by the government to the extent that it does not threaten public welfare. Civil liberty in guaranteeing one’s freedom to do what they want is limited to injury or harm of others by the action done.
The Warren Court's landmark 1963 opinion in Gideon revisited the issue confronted twenty years earlier in Betts v. Brady - the scope of an indigent defendant's constitutional entitlement to government-provided assistance in state court.
The defense argued that this was a suggestive situation, and, therefore, would promote unreliable identification. The prosecution maintained that the spontaneous meeting increased reliability, saying the issue should be decided by the jury. The trial judge suppressed the witness identification, and a mistrial was also granted.
The death penalty takes their young lives and forever changes them, without the opportunity to be rehabilitated by competent sociological or psychological professionals. However, when the case is similar to the one in the article, the
ulfilled its responsibility to interpret the meaning and intention of the involved law and the consenting judges in no way resorted to judicial activism.
One has to be a non-activist to divest the charges of activism oft levied on the consenting judges in this particular case.
After the start of the war there was an increased demand that Japanese individuals residing in America including those who have migrated and even those who were born in the nation were to be looked upon as saboteurs and needed to be evacuated from the Western Coastal regions
Any person accused of any crime is entitled to a fair trial to avoid administration of unjust punishment (Siegel 185). The court should conduct the trial in public “free of prejudice, passion, excitement, and tyrannical power.” In the case of Sheppard v Maxwell
The American government is divided into various arms which perform different functions. The arms include the judiciary, legislature and the executive. Every branch of the government has distinctive functions which they perform independent of the other branches. To achieve this each has their specific roles which they perform as led by their leaders.
1 Pages(250 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Supreme COurt Kelo v. The city U5 for FREE!