Should "though" be "through" here?

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

I didn't understand you, Dave.
In a particular case that has had no precedent, a judge now makes his ruling decision thus set a precedent since. Other judges with same rank or lower will have to consider and follow this precedent when they encounter a similar case until a higher level judge overturns the precedent. In this sense, making a precedent is making law.

And now you said it was a usurpation?

Suppose that to raise funds, obama starts selling titles of nobility;
he 'd thereby be usurping the power to do that.

Suppose that to raise funds, obama starts selling titles of nobility;
he 'd thereby be usurping the power to do that.

Hardly a credible scenario, Dave, or a useful example.
(1) There are Constitutional curbs on a chief executive's ability to do that;

(2) this, if it were, in fact, possible, would constitute a violation of law at the executive,
not the judicial, level; and

(3) as an example, it is totally irrelevant to Oristar's question.

If Congress enacted statutes that we all had to become Moslems,
or any form of gun control those 'd be other usurpations of power.

If Congress enacted statutes that we all had to become Moslems,
or any form of gun control those 'd be other usurpations of power.

Technically correct. However, most people would hardly define such an act as a "usurpation of power" but, rather, as a silly and blatant violation of the powers granted to it by gthe Constitutions. I see "usurpation of power" as an action which actually "usurps" a power allocated to another person or institution. Congress enacting statutes contrary to the highest law of the land is not "usurpation of power"; [O, REALLY??] it is an attempt to circumvent a law which they have sworn to uphold. Hell of a difference.

(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.)

I think it is a pity when informal language finds its way into formal reports.

I think it is a pity when informal language finds its way into formal reports.

I think it is a greater pity when inaccurate information finds it way into a site that aims to let people "know".

Tell us of the emotions of sloths, J
( if u have the energy ).

Tell us of the emotions of sloths, J
( if u have the energy ).

In a word - OmSigDavid