I found this on Drudge. Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html?emWhat stood out for me was how she attributes judicial activism to the Holocaust.
She also offered a theory about why after World War II nations around the world started to create constitutional courts with the power to strike down legislation as the United States Supreme Court has.
“What happened in Europe was the Holocaust,” she said, “and people came to see that popularly elected representatives could not always be trusted to preserve the system’s most basic values.”What do you guys think of this? Personally, I don't think some judge has the right to nullify what people have voted for. The most egregious example of this is the case of Roper vs. Simmons. Here's some background on that case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roper_v._SimmonsRoper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5-4 decision overruled the Court's prior ruling upholding such sentences on offenders above or at the age of 16, in Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989).
Contents
[hide]Another egregious example of judicial activism is how the Supreme Court ruled last year that the death penalty for violent child rapists was "unconstitutional." I forget the name of the case, but it was about some schvartza who very violently raped his eight year old stepdaughter. Naturally the liberal justices ruled against giving that rapist the death penalty.
So my question to you guys is, what would you say to someone who says we need this type of judicial activism as a result of the Holocaust?
Topic: Article on Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Defending Use Of Foreign Laws in US (Read 746 times)