Talk:Judicial restraint/Archive 1

Archive 1

Originalist

This article seems to me to oversell the originalist/textualist viewpoint. The claims of minimalism should be incorporated, though the originalist/textualist claim to the title of judicial restraint should also remain. I will modify this page to incorporate minimalist thought (without disturbing most of the originalist/textualist stuff) soon if I do not hear objections. KrazyCaley 23:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit Article

The Founders were not more conservative than Americans today, they were more libertarian than politicians today.

Judicial restraint is often used to protect the laws passed by living-document politicians. Judicial activism can be used just as easily to return to the literal text of the Constitution, and in my opinion, the courts need to be more active in their use of Judicial Review to overturn unconstitutional legislation. We have too much Judicial Restraint, defering to Congress when Congress is wrong. Stare decisis has its role, but should not be invoked to protect Marshall's misinterpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause a second longer. We need more Judical Activism as a means of returning to smaller, constitutional government.

Let's stop conflating judicial restraint with support for the literal text of the Constitution when so often it is used to protect unconstitutional laws and bad presidents.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎136.160.128.208 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)‎

Reply to above post

Let's try and remember that this is not a talk page for your opinions but one to help others make the page and article a better one than it already is... Please do not put your opinions unless they have to do with what should be changed on the page. Thanks Jgrizzy89 22:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Examples

This article gives three examples as examples of judicial restraint, but two of the examples, Bush v. Gore and District of Columbia v. Heller are not examples of judicial restraint, but are rather examples of the Supreme Court overturning long standing precident and ruling in cases where the doctrine of judicial restraint would urge non-action. I propose that these examples be removed. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This section should mirror what's been done at Judicial activism, which is to specify that the "examples" are cited examples by certain people who may be pushing a point, and to always provide a source that expressly refers to them as examples of judicial restraint. Unsurprisingly the same cases may be on both Judicial activism and Judicial restraint. I've added an unref tag for now. We'll see if it improves over the next few months/weeks. Then maybe we can apply the same criteria. Shadowjams (talk) 20:55, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens

User:Shadowjams inserted hyphens after "judicially", with an edit summary that mentions "unnecessary hyphens". I agree, they are unnecessary, and that's why I took them out. The other part of the edit summary says "these are editing quotes", but the changes were not in a quotation, so that does not make sense. I plan to remove them again, per WP:HYPHEN, which should be read and understood by an editor who finds himself/herself undoing improvements to hyphenation of WP articles. Chris the speller ^yack 05:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were adding them. I'll revisit my edit. Sorry if I was incorrect. I agree with what you've said here. Shadowjams (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)