It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
posted by GT100FV
Judicial precedent has undermined and emasculated it from its original intent, but it means what it says, and that's what the FF felt about personal gun ownership. That's the danger of activitist judges. Judges can do what they want, without having to face an unhappy constituency. [Edited by Don W]
posted by GT100FV
I'm against activist judges, not the judiciary. That's why it's important who gets voted into the Executive branch as they get to pick the judges. I don't think the FF wanted to Judiciary to pass laws, by fiat.
Originally posted by donwhite
posted by GT100FV
I'm against activist judges, not the judiciary. That's why it's important who gets voted into the Executive branch as they get to pick the judges. I don't think the FF wanted to Judiciary to pass laws, by fiat.
All judges are activist. Unless they are dead. “Activist” and “Strict Constructionist” are polemical terms, not judicial terms.