2842

Your definition didn’t sound right to me so here are some definitions I found on google:

Wikipedia first line: “Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law.”

Black’s Law Dictionary: “philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions.”

David Strauss (paraphrase): One or more of three possible actions: overturning laws as unconstitutional, overturning judicial precedent, and ruling against a preferred interpretation of the constitution.

Brittania: “Judicial activism, an approach to the exercise of judicial review, or a description of a particular judicial decision, in which a judge is generally considered more willing to decide constitutional issues and to invalidate legislative or executive actions.”

Heritage Foundation: “Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning. As such, activism does not mean the mere act of striking down a law.”

The Free Dictionary: “Judicial lawmaking that exceeds the proper exercise of judicial authority, especially when concerned with matters ordinarily addressed by a legislature.”

2843

Yeah, conservatives totally don’t use the term for everything they disagree with. Oh wait, it’s used in literally every single case where conservatives lose a ruling. Don’t play condescending. It doesn’t work when you take shit like Fox News as Gospel and then puke it back up every other post while ignoring everything said by people on both sides because it doesn’t fit your narrative.

Also, what Tim N said.

2844

If you want to remain an ignoramus who misuses words, and use as the justification for your ignorance the fact that you heard some conservatives on fox news similarly misuse the word, congrats on becoming a peer to people you purport to despise. I just wasted some time to ensure you were making a more informed decision to join that crew.

2845

Just going to ignore Tman’s post completely huh? I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since it’s par for the course.

Thanks for the… I’d say discussion, but it’s never a discussion with you. So thanks for whatever it was.

2846

Actually, Judicial Activism is generally referred to as “legislating from the bench”. In this case, that is what the Supreme Court has done. There are plenty of Supreme Court cases affirming the right of the EPA to regulate emissions, and for the President to direct them on that task. This was done with no actual legal foundation to override a Federal Court which had already ruled on the matter in accordance with those prior cases.

That is legislating from the bench to usurp powers congress had already provided to the President and the EPA.

2847

Misleading. That would suggest any wrong decision that took into account extraneous factors/bias was “judicial activism”, which is not correct, although a judge who is guilty of judicial activism (by redrafting legislation to the judge’s preference) presumably did so for “personal or political considerations” Don’t rely on wikipedia for anything more complex than Magneto’s publication history.

Black’s Law Dictionary: “philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions.”

That is not the definition from Black’s Law Dictionary. The actual definition correctly indicates that it’s “decision making for social engineering and decisions that represent intrusions into legislative and executive matters.”

David Strauss (paraphrase): One or more of three possible actions: overturning laws as unconstitutional, overturning judicial precedent, and ruling against a preferred interpretation of the constitution.

Need some context to understand what the hell he’s even saying here.

Brittania: “Judicial activism, an approach to the exercise of judicial review, or a description of a particular judicial decision, in which a judge is generally considered more willing to decide constitutional issues and to invalidate legislative or executive actions.”

Correct, but unclear that by “deciding” the judge isn’t just ruling on validity, the judge is proffering a revised definition or substituted language.

Heritage Foundation: “Judicial activism occurs when judges write subjective policy preferences into the law rather than apply the law impartially according to its original meaning. As such, activism does not mean the mere act of striking down a law.”

Exactly right. The key point is that the judge is “writing preferences into the law” rather than impartially according to its meaning or clear wording.

The Free Dictionary: “Judicial lawmaking that exceeds the proper exercise of judicial authority, especially when concerned with matters ordinarily addressed by a legislature.”

Again, correct.

edit: missed bracket.
edit again: that wiki definition isn’t as bad as I indicated in my first reaction, so I changed my answer above.

2848

Why are you saying “actually”, when that’s exactly how I defined it, except with an example?

In this case, that is what the Supreme Court has done. There are plenty of Supreme Court cases affirming the right of the EPA to regulate emissions, and for the President to direct them on that task.

No, what you’re stating above is not fact - it’s the legal issue before the court. i.e. whether or not the EPA/Executive was/were acting within their authority or whether they were indirectly passing legislation beyond their authority by trying to find a backdoor loophole.

All you’re doing is restating the position of the defence, which was expressly rejected by the Supreme Court as incorrect. The court instead found that these actions were not consistent with the authority granted (or at least the matter was sufficiently unclear, and given the potentially irreparable damages if that was the case, that the defence’s position could not be accepted at this time).

2849

You’re far more invested in being adversarial than I am. I was actually just trying to correct your misconception. That’s the second time this week where I’ve made statements that I didn’t even think were controversial but you immediately jumped to some distorted conclusion and reacted with unwarranted hostility. Lighten up, Francis. Take people at face value more often.

2850

Your face value is a talking head for Fox News, so I think I’m doing pretty well. And passive aggressiveness is adversarial, even if you think it isn’t. But we’re done. You never have discussions in good faith, but I’ve always read what you posted anyway to try to keep my mind open on things. Thing is, there are better people to have those conversations with who do act in good faith, so I’ll just stop doing it.

2851

I’m just going to point out that you guys are so interested in fighting, that you aren’t actually saying stuff that is that far off from each other.

2852

I don’t think the concept of “judicial activism” is a concrete one, and that’s why I included some definitions that sounded like what you were saying (particularly the heritage foundation one) and others that imply something different. I also think the definition tends to change whether someone has a clear positive/negative association with the term or an ambiguous one.

Is judicial activism a good thing? I don’t know! Roe V Wade and Citizens United are both prominent examples of judicial activism, and it’s rare to find someone who either likes or dislikes both rulings.

Getting back on topic, all I know is that in this present situation I don’t think the Supreme Court is acting in a way that benefits mankind, activist or not.

2853

Well yeah, of course I’m restating the opinion of the defense, because it is solidly established in current law and by Supreme Court precedents. Hence, legislating from the bench because these 5 don’t approve of those laws/precedents.

The case of the plaintiffs doesn’t hold water according to a wealth of prior decisions.

2854

‘Toxic chemicals found in beached pilot whales in Scotland’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/11/toxic-chemicals-found-in-beached-pilot-whales-in-soctland

Scientists have found clear evidence that whales are absorbing high levels of toxic heavy metals, with cadmium found in the brains of pilot whales which washed up in Scotland.

Chemists at the University of Aberdeen said they had found cadmium in all the organs of adult long-finned pilot whales which stranded in 2012, including their brain.

The research shows for the first time that cadmium – known to pass into the brains of infant and unborn whales - had also passed across the so-called blood-brain barrier in adult whales.

They said their findings also suggested that mercury concentrations could be increasing high enough in the seas “to lead to additional toxic stress in the long-lived marine mammals”, with higher concentrations increasing with age.

The team, lead by Dr Eva Krupp, an environmental analytical chemist, tested the remains of 21 long-finned pilot whales which died in a mass grounding between Anstruther and Pittenweem in Fife in September 2012.

There have been a series of recent whale strandings, with the most dramatic in the UK taking place in Norfolk in January and early February. Six sperm whales washed up over a series of days along beaches in East Anglia, in a stranding linked to other recent groundings by sperm whales in Germany and France. Cetacean experts are currently testing samples to investigate possible reasons why.

“We were able to gather an unprecedented number of tissue samples from all the major organs including the brain and as a result we can see for the first time the long term effects of mammalian exposure to the environmental pollutants,” Krupp said of the whales that stranded in 2012.

“This pod of whales provides unique new insights because we were able to look at the effects on a large number of whales from the same pod and how this varied according to age.”

The university said that in three of the whales aged nine years or older, the mercury concentrations were higher than the toxic levels which would cause severe neurological damage in humans.

2855

Londoners will get used to this, especially as global warming effects come into play:
<br />
<br />
‘London flood alerts in place as ‘astronomical’ tides hit Thames’:
<br />
<br />
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/12/london-flood-alerts-astronomical-tide-levels-thames

2856

And quite an interesting analysis of us school education and climate change:

‘30 percent of science teachers give misinformation about climate change’:

I would not be at all surprised to find some are being paid to do this.

2857

I’m pretty sure all teachers draw a salary, so in that sense you’re right. :)

I find it unlikely that Big Oil is sending reps out to bribe high school science teachers or anything like that, though. That’s a PR disaster waiting to happen.

2858

Interesting article about how land is absorbing more water than previously expected, slowing the sea level rise.

2859

My garden has certainly absorbed a huge amount of water this winter! It’s been impossible to get out into it to do anything.

‘Climate risks could wreak havoc on financial markets, EU watchdog warns’:

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/feb/12/climate-risks-could-wreak-havoc-on-financial-markets-eu-watchdog-warns

The EU’s financial watchdog has called for governments to consider imposing asset disclosures on industry and stress tests on banks as a guard against the economic crisis that could be caused by an emergency switchover to clean energy.

The European Systemic Risk Board – set up by the EU in the wake of the 2008 crash to monitor risks to financial markets – has warned in a new report of economic “contagion” if moves to a low carbon economy happen too late and abruptly.

A scramble to take fossil fuels offline could reduce energy supplies, while increasing their cost and exposing investors to the worst effects of ‘stranded assets’, or fossil fuel holdings that may never be recouped without causing climate disaster.

Nearly 200 governments at the Paris climate summit in December agreed to bring greenhouse gas emissions down to net zero in the second half of the century, to tackle global warming.

But if governments dither and are then forced to green their economies in a rush, the study warns that banks which are exposed to ‘carbon-intensive’ or CO2-heavy assets could face systemic risks.

This effect has already started in truth, but it will certainly speed up as we move too slowly to change our CO2 output.

2860

2861

‘Australian wine under threat from climate change, as grapes ripen early’:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/17/australian-wine-under-threat-from-climate-change-as-grapes-ripen-early

Wine grapes in Australia are ripening between one and two days earlier each year due to climate change in a trend viticultural experts say could see some traditional varieties abandoned in warmer areas.

The Victorian wine industry is partway through what could shape up to be its earliest vintage on record, thanks to an exceptionally warm spring and warm summer.

Grape growers are also experiencing a compressed vintage with typically later-ripening red grape varieties demanding to be picked at the same time as earlier varieties such as chardonnay, causing congestion in the crushing bay as three months of grapes arrive in three weeks.

Snow Barlow, honorary professor of agriculture and food systems at Melbourne University, said vintage dates had been shifting forward at a gradually accelerated rate over the past 30 years and the trend was set to continue, with grapes ripening an average of seven days earlier for every degree the climate warmed.

“They clearly are the canary in the cage,” he told Guardian Australia. “You can say what you will about climate change but the plants don’t lie, they just react to what they feel, and they are reacting again.”

A 2011 study by Barlow’s Melbourne University colleague, Leanne Webb, examined the vintage records of 44 vineyards, some of which went back as far as 115 years, and found that grapes had ripened at a rate of 1.7 days a year earlier between 1993 and 2009.

A later study, led by Webb and co-authored by Barlow, found that change was driven by a warmer temperatures and lower soil moisture content, even accounting for an industry-wide shift towards picking earlier to get low-alcohol wines.

“It does mean that for particular varieties you really do have to think about moving,” Barlow said.

“It sounds a bit ho-hum in some ways but the climate is changing and you really do have to analyse carefully when you are looking to set up an agricultural enterprise not only whether this is the place to do it now but whether this is still going to be the place to do it in 25 years time – whether you are going to have access to the water you need in 25 years.

“The South Australian wine companies are looking at the Adelaide Hills and thinking well, do we really have enough water there?”

The same trends have been observed in Europe, where records have been kept by generations of winemakers since the 1500s. The information is a valuable indicator of climatic change – there is an extensive global dataset noting the picking dates and, in later decades, the sugar levels, or Baumé, of individual vineyards.

“Where it differs a bit in Europe is that for the most part they have probably pushed the boundaries a bit more than we have but more toward the cool side, so when you look at Bordeaux or look at Champagne and the worst years are sort of the cold and wet ones,” Barlow said. “So they’re talking about it as something that will help.”

In Australia it’s the opposite effect: warm springs and hot summers can produce lower-quality wine, and if they’re coupled with bushfires there is, Snow said, “bugger all you can do” to save the wine being tainted by smoke.

Well damn. I love a nice bottle of (organic) wine, and the less of them to go around the sadder we will all be.