Talk:Judicial interpretation

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 13 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dudebob5420.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Redirect
Why on earth does this redirect point to 'judicial activism'? The two words are not the same at all: activism is a form of judicial interpretation.
 * This page needs an article to go with it. The articles that it links to can form part of it. - Matthew238 00:27, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed cat
I removed. While this relates to the Supreme Court, it is not exclusive to the Supreme Court.

I don't know enough about the subject matter to make a valid contribution but seems to me this article is solely about interpretation of the US constitution. if i wanted to know about judicial interpretation of the us constitution i would've searched for that instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.251.30 (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Epolk 23:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Intentionalism?
I came here looking for somethign like Intentionalism. It was somethign about trying to interpret the intent of law. Mathiastck 14:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

circular definition
The article begins with this:


 * Judicial interpretation is a theory or mode of thought that explains how the judiciary should interpret the law,

This is circular! To understand the phrase "how the judiciary should interpret the law", one must FIRST know what "the judiciary...interpret[ing] the law" means. But that is just what the sentence purports to explain. Michael Hardy 04:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

verifiability of arguments
This article seemed to have a strict constructionalist bias, with more time spent on "pro" arguments for strict constructionalism and a noticeable lack of criticisms of that approach. The text for other approaches spends much less time in support and still finds time to criticize.

I tried to balance this text, but many of these arguments, while probably verifiable, had not actually been verified. Remember, from No original research:

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Articles should only contain verifiable content from reliable sources without further analysis. Content should not be synthesized to advance a position.

Kbmartin2 05:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Delete? Total original research
I am actually adding ref'd info, but this article should be deleted as pure WP:OR. If I wasn't busy I'd put it up myself - in fact I just started a "delete list" and when am in mood for revisiting the rules will put a notation on top of this article. So get busy referencing it, if you wrote it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Either Rename, Expand or Delete
As happens all too often on Wikipedia, this article appears from its title to be about a broad topic of worldwide concern, but turns out to be about (one person's view of) an issue in the United States alone. If Wikipedians are serious about making this encyclopedia genuinely international in scope and impact, and avoiding misleading and annoying non-American users, this article should either be renamed (something like "Judical interpretation of the U.S. Constitution"), or expanded to cover ALL the other meanings of "Judicial interpretation" around the world, or deleted. Apologies in advance is anyone is bored or offended by the implication that Wikipedia is excessively oriented to the United States, but it's not a matter of anti-Americanism, it's a matter of pro-Wikipedianism (which, if it wasn't already a word, is now). Merry Christmas, by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.21.78 (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Merge
In addition to all things said, this article seems to duplicate the article on Statutory interpretation. I would suggest to consider merging, or if the copyright problem persists, to remove and cross reference. (Sidebar: I added this article to the WikiLaw project, as I think it fits within the scope.)

Ernie (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: American Constitutional Interpretation (1995), by Murphy, Fleming and Barber. Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Living vs Moral Constitution
I don't see where this premise is supported anywhere, and the two don't even seem related to me. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 15:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're entirely correct, Founder'sIntent. "Living Constitutionalism" is a new-age progressive term which implies that the Constitution shouldn't exist because its too rigid, and doesn't adjust... but this is ridiculous, because "fluid constitutionalism" can only lead to Despotism which is the lack of a rule of law. Both of these terms should be removed.  They are invalid in the realm of legitimate Judicial interpretation. --Enorl76 (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with you fine people. Removed 'living constitution' and 'moral constitution'. ✅--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sructuralism
The sentence on 'structuralism' links to an article about structuralism in anthropology, literary theory, etc, which has no obvious relevance to judicial interpretation. If there is in fact a 'structuralist' approach to judicial interpretation, isn't there a better account of it somewhere?109.148.117.50 (talk) 15:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Judicial jurisprudence isn't a viable option when it comes to decision. It specifically defies the duty of a judge which is specifically to uphold the constitution and law. Which when conflicting the constitution as written is final. Case law, jurisprudentialism, all deny you the right to a fair and unbias trial. Jacob Daniel Anderson (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

It is as simple as that. As well as balancing all come from wrong doing of judicial members that use fancy wording as an excuse of why. Jacob Daniel Anderson (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is one view, but there are other views, and not everybody agrees -- including constitutional scholars as well as justices themselves -- and Wikipedia's policy is to try to be neutral and to represent the differing viewpoints as best that we can, while using reliable sources which, for this subject, will be constitutional scholars, judges in some instances, law professors, legal journals, and such.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving source to talk page
I'm moving the following source here to the talk page because it is an editoral opinion piece, not a scholorly work. It could be used as part of a list of examples of critical opinion, but not to establish fact beyond the opinion of the writer. (see WP:RS)  Sparkie82 ( t • c )  01:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of referenced content
There are many different ways, and approaches, from which justices interpret a constitution. The ones in the article are referenced -- please don't remove them without either making a case that (1) the reference is bogus or (2) another reference saying that a general method of interpretation is bogus. Please use reliable sources which are verifiable, thank you.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 09:47, 30 June 2017 (UTC)