Should "though" be "through" here?

Yes. That's a typo.

liken to legislating from the bench.

We call this judicial legislation.

For the record,
as I see it, the correct rationale for freedom of abortion
is self defense, as defended by 2nd and 9th Amendments.
If I remember accurately, the circuit court of appeals used that.
Roe v. Wade was not artfully drafted in the USSC.
David

liken to legislating from the bench.

We call this judicial legislation.

For the record,
as I see it, the correct rationale for freedom of abortion
is self defense, as defended by 2nd and 9th Amendments.
If I remember accurately, the circuit court of appeals used that.
Roe v. Wade was not artfully drafted in the USSC.
David

Thank you Dave.
But I didn't get it. What liken to legislating from the bench?

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Yes. That's a typo.

Thank you Merry.

By the by, in the context there is "liken to". Liken what to?

OmSigDAVID wrote:

liken to legislating from the bench.

We call this judicial legislation.

For the record,
as I see it, the correct rationale for freedom of abortion
is self defense, as defended by 2nd and 9th Amendments.
If I remember accurately, the circuit court of appeals used that.
Roe v. Wade was not artfully drafted in the USSC.
David

oristarA wrote:

Thank you Dave.
But I didn't get it. What liken to legislating from the bench?

It refers to judicial activism.
In other words:
Conservatives can liken judicial activism
unto legislating from the bench.

Judicial activism means judges changing things around
to conform to their own preferences,
instead of blindly applying the existing law.

Imagine a surgeon on the job who (without authorization)
starts changing around the patient in front of him on the table,
to re-create him according to the personal wishes of that surgeon,
like a sculptor cutting rock to make it look the way he wants.

David

I have a feeling that you don't understand this use of 'liken', Ori.

liken - consider or describe as similar, equal, or analogous

[Quick definitions from WordNet ]

Examples from M-W:

<he generally likened a root canal to some horrible form of torture>
<I think that we can liken the two pianists, at least in terms of natural talent.>

"Judicial activism" is being likened to "legislating from the bench." In other words the assertion is being made that the rulings of certain "activist" judges amount to passing laws from the judicial seat of power, "the bench", that being a case of the judicial branch usurping the powers of the legislative branch of the government.

"Judicial activism" is being likened to "legislating from the bench." In other words the assertion is being made that the rulings of certain "activist" judges amount to passing laws from the judicial seat of power, "the bench", that being a case of the judicial branch usurping the powers of the legislative branch of the government.

I'd like to dive into the complexity of this common law. Because it is informative.

Gracias.

A judge can make a judgement in a case where the law is less than clear on a particular subject. Any such judgement constitutes a "precedent" which then has the effect of law because future cases dealing with the same subject will then have to be decided on the basis of the precedet set in previous cases. (Btw, McTag is quite right -- this is primarily an American phenomenon; courts elsewhere in the English-speaking -- and non-English-speaking -- world are far less likely to rely on such precedent.) When this happens, judges are frequently accused of, in effect, trying to pass a new law because their judgement did not rely on any existing law but, rather, on their interpretation of the situation. That's what's meant by "usurping the powers of the legislative branch."

Quote:

"Judicial activism" is being likened to "legislating from the bench." In other words the assertion is being made that the rulings of certain "activist" judges amount to passing laws from the judicial seat of power, "the bench", that being a case of the judicial branch usurping the powers of the legislative branch of the government.

oristarA wrote:

I'd like to dive into the complexity of this common law. Because it is informative.

Gracias.

It was said that judges FIND the law (discover it by study) not make the law.
The objection to judicial legislation is usurpation
of the legislative function, creating new law, faking and pretending
that it exists; inventing it.
David

David is using the word "usurpation" in the sense that judges are supposed to interpret existing laws and rule according to those laws, not, in effect, create new laws by precedent-setting judgements. In that sense they are "usurping" the prerogative of the legislative branch of government (in the case of the USA that would be the Congress).