Posts
Trumwill posted a story that, if I had heard it on Limbaugh, I wouldn't have believed it. Look, I despise liberals too, but would the good liberals administering child support laws in Los Angeles County really enforce a child support judgment against a patently innocent man?
Um, well . . . yes, as it turned out. And a narrow, technical reading of California law allows them to do just that. So what's to be done?
I feel my paradigms shifting without a clutch. When SCOTUS declares CO2 to be a "pollutant" even though Congress didn't, or when it goes on about "penumbras of emanations" and whatnot, then obviously judicial activism attenuates our democracy. But judicial restraint presupposes that the other branches of government will work, not necessarily competently, but at least without the brazen disregard for truth and justice as shown in this case.
1 comment:
I hadn't actually thought of this as a case of "judicial activism", but I suppose it is sort of that. The law says what the law says. The law is grossly unfair, of course, and I don't mourn it's court-enforced modification. It's quite a quandary for those that would prefer laws not be passed by the courts and also insist on a modicum of fairness in paternity law.
Post a Comment