Judicial Activism

Thanks for joining me in this debate. YOU INQUIRE: "Con to clarify our positions in this debate and please correct me if I am wrong pro is trying to show that a judge "has the inherent authority to not follow the law" con is trying to show that statement to be incorrect" I RESPOND: To clarify, PRO contends that a judge "has the inherent authority to not follow the law", a specific law that indubitably applies to the particular case, if applying such law in such case will necessarily cause an outrageous and unconscionable result in the case. CON contends that judges have no such inherent authority. They must in all cases apply the specific law the indubitably applies to the particular case. YOU ARGUE: "first he states that "it is impossible for the lawmaker to enact laws that will cover all the possible cases that can arise in society." what he fails to see is that if congress does not pass a law agents something than it is not illegal. It is not the judicial branches job to impose justice. it s there job to interpret the laws of congress or to deem them unconstitutional." I RESPOND: The statement "what he fails to see is that if congress does not pass a law agents something than it is not illegal." is a true statement, but an irrelevant statement. A court case is either civil or criminal. It arises out of an event or set of circumstances involving the two parties. And the two parties are in conflict in the case. Our debate is about a PARTICULAR case where a SPECIFIC law indubitably apples to the case. But if the judge applies that law in the case, the result will be OUTRAGEOUS and UNCONSCIONABLE for either one or both of the parties. YOU STATE: "It is not the judicial branches job to impose justice" I disagree. The ultimate purpose of a court is to render "LEGAL JUSTICE" to the parties in the case. A case is initiated by one of the parties suing the other party (and seeking a result that he thinks and contends constitutes legal justice) LEGAL JUSTICE is justice according to the law. http://en.wikipedia.org... YOU STATE: "it s there job to interpret the laws of congress or to deem them unconstitutional." I agree, but these duties of a court are irrelevant to the issue that we are debating, namely, DOES A JUDGE have INHERENT AUTHORITY to NOT apply a SPECIFIC LAW in a PARTICULAR case to prevent an OUTRAGEOUS and UNCONSCIONABLE result. YOU ARGUE: "now to my opponents example of the mentally ill person charged with burglary, and aggravated assault. he seems to have forgotten that insanity is a valid defense against a crime so the judge did in fact follow the law" I RESPOND: Here is the example that you refer to: "3. "9 I was once appointed to represent a naive young man who was charged, along with an accomplice (a burglar on parole), with aggravated assault, a charge which then carried a mandatory three-year prison sentence. They burglarized a lake cabin, took guns, and then drew upon the owner who unexpectedly appeared on the scene. Before the Hon. Donald Odden, a lion on the bench, (whose beloved lake cabin, incidentally, had been burglarized in the past), I argued for a rule departure, simply that it would be immoral and contrary to justice, to send my client to prison: He was retarded. He worked as a part-time garbage man. He was a dupe. Then the prosecutor, John DeSanto, told Odden to do what he thought "was right." Odden then growled at the client, threatened prison if he screwed up, and placed him on probation." http://www2.mnbar.org...... The example DOES NOT state that the defendant was mentally ill. It states that he was retarded. 'Mental illness' and mental 'retardation' are not the same kind of mental impairment. Therefore, a 'mental illness' DEFENSE cannot be asserted by the defendant. The law that you cite does not apply in the case. The example states that he was 'RETARDED', http://encarta.msn.com... , which is not the same thing as being 'mentally ill'. http://encarta.msn.com... ; http://encarta.msn.com... Your argument assumes a fact ( and bases a claimed defense on that fact) that is not mentioned in the example. Thus, your argument is irrelevant.