Judicial Activism

daveo77

Long time lurker first time poster, currently studying a small bit of law but often look at threads on here for anything of interest. Have just started studying a small bit of Judicial Activism.

Just wondering what's peoples opinions on it, for or against? I'm struggling to get my head around it, while on one side I think it could positively lead to the evolution of the law, while on the other hand though this could also be considered a negative to some.

Thought I'd try get a bit of a discussion going.

Reloc8

daveo77 wrote: »

while on one side I think it could positively lead to the evolution of the law, while on the other hand though this could also be considered a negative to some.

+1

ratonrouge

This is an area I'm quite interested in having watched Spanish lawyer Baltasar Garzon for years. Im going to look up something and post it later.

Avatargh

daveo77 wrote: »

Long time lurker first time poster, currently studying a small bit of law but often look at threads on here for anything of interest. Have just started studying a small bit of Judicial Activism.

Just wondering what's peoples opinions on it, for or against? I'm struggling to get my head around it, while on one side I think it could positively lead to the evolution of the law, while on the other hand though this could also be considered a negative to some.

Thought I'd try get a bit of a discussion going.

Depends what you mean by it. What is judicial "activism"? Sometimes conservative (whatever that means) decisions are just as activist as non-conservative ones...

Is it making socially progressive decisions? If so, what does that even mean? Decisions we like as opposed to ones we don't like?

Does it mean interpreting laws in a way that someone says goes beyond the actual wording? If so, who says what the wording actually means?

Its hard to talk about without setting some rules, and very easy once you do!

MeteoritesEire

I am completely absorbed by this subject now and have been for many months.The idea of the legal fiction person and the jurisdiction of the judges.The whole subject of the common law versus statutes that we never consented to.Extremely intriguing subject and very deep.Trying to link to a youtube vid where this fella turns back a sherriffs rep who is trying to repossess the house --very interesting http://bit.ly/Aso6Cc

the fact that a lawyers first duty is to the courts and not the defendant is almost unbelievable and I only recently became aware that The Courts in England are a private company and the same is likely true of the Irish courts.

why the legal system cannot defend you http://bit.ly/zTgx1z

Ben Gilroy is his name btw --http://bit.ly/z6HVfo

johnnyskeleton

Sorry Mr Fremen, but your speil has nothing to do with judicial activism, the consent to statutes is because we voted for our democratic constitution and no it's not true that you have to consent to each statute before it applies to you, lawyers' primary duty is to their clients, courts are not a private company and in effect, everything the fremen say is nonsense, misunderstanding and downright lies.

MeteoritesEire

well mr skeleton--I'm sure people can research the subject and make their own minds up--you are wrong

johnnyskeleton

MeteoritesEire wrote: »

well mr skeleton--I'm sure people can research the subject and make their own minds up--you are wrong

I'm sure they can and the lack of any evidence to support the theory, together with even a basic application of common sense will sadly lead most people to the inevitable conclusion that yes, I am right.

For proof that the courts are not private companies, read the constitutional provisions which set them up, or the appoint of judges by thr government, or somegood old fashioned Montesquieu.

As to lawyers duty, look up thr codes of conduct for solicitors and barristers respectively, which show that lawyers primary duty is to vindicate the rights of their clients, with a secondary duty not to wilfully mislead or decieve the courts.

There is also a big thread on this subject - the freeman megamerge - which debunks all of their theories. On a basic level, do you accept that a democratically elected government has the power to pass laws and to enforce then by way of puttig non compliers in jail? If yes, why would they build into this system such a flaw whereby you can simply declare yourself not bound and the rules don't apply to you? Why would they put it in then try to hide it?

If you don't accept that a democratically elected state has such power, then fear not. A wise man once said that reality is that which, once you stop believing in it, it stubbornly refuses to go away. If any of these people really believed their argument they would be going out and committing all sorts of crimes. What sort of society is that?

Raisins

MeteoritesEire wrote: »

I am completely absorbed by this subject now and have been for many months.The idea of the legal fiction person and the jurisdiction of the judges.The whole subject of the common law versus statutes that we never consented to.Extremely intriguing subject and very deep.Trying to link to a youtube vid where this fella turns back a sherriffs rep who is trying to repossess the house --very interesting http://bit.ly/Aso6Cc

the fact that a lawyers first duty is to the courts and not the defendant is almost unbelievable and I only recently became aware that The Courts in England are a private company and the same is likely true of the Irish courts.

why the legal system cannot defend you http://bit.ly/zTgx1z

Ben Gilroy is his name btw --http://bit.ly/z6HVfo

There's a thread for you called the freeman megamerge. The OP has a genuine question on jurisprudence. He said he studied a small bit of law so I very much doubt he'll take onboard any of the nonsense you're spouting.

MeteoritesEire

no, I don't accept that--there's more to it

a search for 'freeman megamerge' produces 6 results none of which link to the freeman megamerge thread---anyone help me find it? thx

Ken.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056353782

johnnyskeleton

MeteoritesEire wrote: »

no, I don't accept that--there's more to it

a search for 'freeman megamerge' produces 6 results none of which link to the freeman megamerge thread---anyone help me find it? thx

there really is nothing more to it. If you breach a statute a Garda will arrest you, judge will try you and if you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, you will be put in an institution like mountjoy jail. This is not some abstract theory of justice, this is what will actually happen and anyone trying to challenge this will either have to be democratically elected an chang it from within or else mount an armed insurrection and overthrow the state. Simply wishing or lying about the state we live in will not change it

MeteoritesEire

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

there really is nothing more to it. If you breach a statute a Garda will arrest you, judge will try you and if you are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment, you will be put in an institution like mountjoy jail. This is not some abstract theory of justice, this is what will actually happen and anyone trying to challenge this will either have to be democratically elected an chang it from within or else mount an armed insurrection and overthrow the state. Simply wishing or lying about the state we live in will not change it

A bit oversimplistic methinks JS and not entirely fully thought through but I shall have to wait for another day to fully retort as I've just read the first half of that freeman megamerge thread and my eyes are bleeding and it's 2:08 a.m ,however fully retort I shall as I see you are one of the few who is actually making sound arguments and not just calling anyone who is enthralled/interested in the freeman movement 'an idiot', a 'nutter' etc etc ad infinitum like a bunch of 15 year olds or something.On that note I bid you a goodnight and look forward to future intelligent debate without moderator threats to close the thread down (bit bizarre that whole concept)