home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky misc.legal:23068 alt.politics.usa.constitution:1527
- Newsgroups: misc.legal,alt.politics.usa.constitution
- Path: sparky!uunet!boulder!ucsu!ucsu.Colorado.EDU!fcrary
- From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
- Subject: Re: Making law (was: Shouting "Movie!" at a Fire Station)
- Message-ID: <1993Jan22.020117.20007@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>
- Sender: news@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (USENET News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: ucsu.colorado.edu
- Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
- References: <27ft02m733=201@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <1993Jan21.041940.1487@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> <1993Jan21.061044.6447@midway.uchicago.edu>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 02:01:17 GMT
- Lines: 21
-
- In article <1993Jan21.061044.6447@midway.uchicago.edu> thf2@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
- >>Actually, I'm insisting on a semantic point becuase I'm opposed to
- >>activism: The distinction between interperting law (filling in the
- >>details, defining vague phrases, etc...) and making law (that is,
- >>things beyond the scope of existing law, altering the meaning of
- >>existing law, etc...) helps to distinguish and highlight activist
- >>rulings. If you mix these meanings (i.e. use "interpert" and
- >>"make" interchangably) activism becomes less clear, and sounds
- >>more reasonable.
-
- >Except the very act of refusing to deal with issues beyond the scope
- >of existing law "makes" law.
-
- I'm afraid I don't see this at all: If there is no existing law,
- then the judge has no authority to deal with the issue. If he
- refuses to deal with it, what has changed? By his refusal, there is
- no case law on the established, and the status quo, a lack of
- law on the subject, remains unchanged.
-
- Frank Crary
- CU Boulder
-