home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
/ NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3 / NN_1993_3.iso / spool / misc / legal / 22999 < prev    next >
Encoding:
Internet Message Format  |  1993-01-21  |  2.1 KB
  1. Xref: sparky misc.legal:22999 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1512
  2. Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
  3. Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!ellis!thf2
  4. From: thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
  5. Subject: Re: Making law (was: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station)
  6. Message-ID: <1993Jan21.061044.6447@midway.uchicago.edu>
  7. Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System)
  8. Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
  9. Organization: University of Chicago
  10. References: <1993Jan20.062214.4395@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <27ft02m733=201@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <1993Jan21.041940.1487@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
  11. Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 06:10:44 GMT
  12. Lines: 25
  13.  
  14. In article <1993Jan21.041940.1487@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
  15. >In article <27ft02m733=201@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> tjc50@juts.ccc.amdahl.com (Terry Carroll) writes:
  16. >>It sounds like what you're opposed to is "judicial activism," courts making 
  17. >>law that is deemed betyond their proper scope (and the extent of that scope 
  18. >>is subject of a great deal of debate).  You can't seriously object to courts 
  19. >>making law, which is unavoidable.
  20. >
  21. >Actually, I'm insisting on a semantic point becuase I'm opposed to 
  22. >activism: The distinction between interperting law (filling in the
  23. >details, defining vague phrases, etc...) and making law (that is,
  24. >things beyond the scope of existing law, altering the meaning of
  25. >existing law, etc...) helps to distinguish and highlight activist
  26. >rulings. If you mix these meanings (i.e. use "interpert" and
  27. >"make" interchangably) activism becomes less clear, and sounds
  28. >more reasonable.
  29.  
  30. Except the very act of refusing to deal with issues beyond the scope
  31. of existing law "makes" law.  Are judges, when faced with such a case,
  32. supposed to self-destruct like a Star Trek android told a paradox?  (Would
  33. make oral argument much more interesting, to be sure.)  Remember -- you
  34. can't dismiss the case, either, because that also makes law.
  35. -- 
  36. ted frank                     | thf2@ellis.uchicago.edu 
  37. standard disclaimers          | void where prohibited
  38. the university of chicago law school, chicago, illinois 60637
  39.