3 ms·

direct democracies weren't practical at the scale of a nation until relatively recently, but yes, many smaller governmental bodies can and have been direct. bu

direct democracies weren't practical at the scale of a nation until relatively recently, but yes, many smaller governmental bodies can and have been direct. but no, the judiciary is not a legislative body (nor is the executive). it curbs legislative power through interpretation (as does the executive), as is their charge, and therefore has influence and power at the margins, not in the wholesale creation of laws. it's more influential in the negative--striking down unconstitutional laws wholesale. that's not the same as a legislative body. besides, representative democracy centers around the legislature, not the judiciary. talking about an undemocratic judiciary was just a contrivance for partisanship.

renewiltord 6y ago
The judiciary is not a legislative body. I don't think anyone is claiming it is. But it acts, in practice, often as a legislative body. Certainly any application of judicial activism is indistinguishable from legislation due to the use of judicial precedence, i.e. it is parallel law-making. For what it's worth, the nature of the judiciary appointed by representatives chosen by voters is just slow representative democracy. It is no surprise that, given the ability to make a law-like, appointed in a manner that is representative-like, they act lawmaker-like. They are, in their activism, isomorphic to lawmakers. That's what judicial activism is. In a POSIWID sense, the judiciary are lawmakers, no matter what you call them, like North Korea is a dictatorship despite being called a Democratic People's Republic.
- clairity 6y ago
  no, you're trying to stretch concepts past the breaking point to fit a desired narrative. the judiciary isn't a parallel lawmaking body. the legislation has corrective oversight of judiciary interpretation (outside of consitutional issues). that the legislature only exercises their oversight selectively inconsistent to your wishes is not a judicial issue. also, "judicial activism" is a loaded term. the judiciary is doing exactly and only what it's tasked to do--interpret law against the backdrop of the constitition; it's not a bug if you disagree with its decisions.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    I don't. I love it's decisions, I'm glad they made them, and I said as much, but that doesn't change that they're making law.

renewiltord 6y ago

The judiciary is not a legislative body. I don't think anyone is claiming it is. But it acts, in practice, often as a legislative body. Certainly any application of judicial activism is indistinguishable from legislation due to the use of judicial precedence, i.e. it is parallel law-making. For what it's worth, the nature of the judiciary appointed by representatives chosen by voters is just slow representative democracy. It is no surprise that, given the ability to make a law-like, appointed in a manner that is representative-like, they act lawmaker-like. They are, in their activism, isomorphic to lawmakers. That's what judicial activism is. In a POSIWID sense, the judiciary are lawmakers, no matter what you call them, like North Korea is a dictatorship despite being called a Democratic People's Republic.

clairity 6y ago
no, you're trying to stretch concepts past the breaking point to fit a desired narrative. the judiciary isn't a parallel lawmaking body. the legislation has corrective oversight of judiciary interpretation (outside of consitutional issues). that the legislature only exercises their oversight selectively inconsistent to your wishes is not a judicial issue. also, "judicial activism" is a loaded term. the judiciary is doing exactly and only what it's tasked to do--interpret law against the backdrop of the constitition; it's not a bug if you disagree with its decisions.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  I don't. I love it's decisions, I'm glad they made them, and I said as much, but that doesn't change that they're making law.