Judging is not social policy making

[JimG]

Judging is not social policy-making – Catholic World Report

 

[Anrakyr]

It kinda is. Otherwise “precedent” wouldn’t be a thing.

 

[JimG]

If a judge seeks to make a decision simply based on the policy outcome he wants, then law, legislation, and the constitution are meaningless. The judge ought to decide the case based on the applicable law which is at issue. We are a nation of laws, not men, not even judges. The first consideration is “what does the law say about the matter at hand?” Not, “what outcome do I like?” If a judge wants to make policy, he should seek legislative office.

 

[FiveLinden]

There is a difference between interpreting legislation and interpreting constitutions, especially very very old ones like that of the USA.

 

[otjm]

There is a difference between interpreting legislation and interpreting constitutions, especially very very old ones like that of the USA.

One may have a legislative law which appears to violate a constitutional principle. There may or may not be room enough to interpret the legislative mandate to avoid a conflict with a constitutional principle; if there is not enough room, the legislation will fall.

On the other hand, the legislation may provide a law, and facts subsequently arise which are not clearly provided for, or prohibited by, the law; then the legislative law will be interpreted. That interpretation, in turn, might run afoul of the constitution. Or not.

But the interpretation of the legislation (which was not clear as to the specific facts) may be outside the intent of the legislature, which may amend the law, which woud lead to an amendment of the law.