Battle for the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism vs. Restraint

Reason's Damon Root Discusses the Battle for Control Over the Country's Highest Court

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Battle for the Supreme Court: Judicial Activism vs. Restraint

HD Video Download

"The libertarian moment that's happening right now is the product of 30 years of academic work, legal activism, and lawyers bringing cases arguing that the role of the courts is to protect individual rights and to put a stop to government overreach," says Damon Root, senior editor at Reason Magazine and author of the new book Overruled: The Long War for Control of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Overruled gives a fascinating historical account of the battle between two competing visions regarding the proper role of the Supreme Court–a battle which continues to shape our constitutional system today. Should the court defer to the majority's will? Or does it have the power and responsibility to protect individual rights?

Root recently sat down with Reason TV's Nick Gillespie to discuss this battle for control and why today's libertarians are fed up with the practice of judicial restraint. Libertarians are calling for the courts to increasingly police the other branches of government and snuff out any state or federal law that infringes on constitutionally protected personal and economic freedoms.  

About 22 minutes. Camera by Jim Epstein and Anthony Fisher. Edited by Amanda Winkler. 

Scroll below for downloadable versions. Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to get automatic notifications when new material goes live.

Comments

[UnCivilServant]

Sarbox Grouper Case

It's slightly Off topic, but predictions on what the court will do?

[Catatafish]

Read some of the questions from the justices. Seemed to be a broad feeling that this was a square-peg/round-hole application of SarbOx or was just utterly asinine behavior by the prosecutor.

Would be nice if they issued an opinion that significantly pared down application of the law. I've never spent time getting really smart on SarbOx but a little voice in the back of my mind wonders about a potential conflict with the 5A and self-incrimination...

[Pargo]

There is no conflict between the Yates case and the fifth amendment. In this case a commercial fisherman was caught with undersized fish. Those fish were crated as evidence and the boat was allowed to continue commercial operations with the instructions that the crated undersized fish would still be aboard when the boat returned to harbor. In this case, the operator dumped the fish and placed larger fish in the crate.

The whole point of this part of Sarbanes-Oxley is to allow a criminal investigation to proceed without disrupting the business being investigated. Before Sarbanes-Oxley if a prosecutor had sufficient evidence to get a search warrant, law enforcement came in and seized everything: filing cabinets, computers, everything was impounded as evidence. The effect was that the business simply stopped. Sarbanes-Oxley allows the investigator to serve the business with a notice that they are not to destroy any evidence so that the business can continue operating during the investigation.

While the law was written with business documents in mind, the parallel to Mr. Yates is clear in that the Fish and Wildlife officer that boarded Mr. Yates's vessel could have required him to return to harbor immediately under supervision in order to ensure that the fish in question were not destroyed. Instead Mr. Yates was allowed to continue operations with the expectation that the undersized fish would be properly measured at the dock and the appropriate fine levied.

[Faceless Commenter]

Even more OT: I can't help thinking Ruth Bader Ginsburg looks like the Ruth Bader Ginsburg Doll. The genuine Ruth Bader Ginsburg is actually life-sized.

[Faceless Commenter]

I mean seriously, the woman is about to fall through the spindles of that chair.

[Faceless Commenter]

Does she have to run around in the shower to get wet?

[laurendeleeegy]

my friend's sister-in-law makes $82 /hr on the laptop . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her paycheck was $15787 just working on the laptop for a few hours. hop over to this website....

????? http://www.netjob70.com

[Knarf Yenrab!]

Fine, fine, I'll buy your book too.

[MoreFreedom]

I agree with Root. Our judges need to rein in government. Instead, they have allowed government to vote in laws that blatently violate the Constitution, and also reduce our freedom and prosperity in far too many ways. Seems like the statists in government, have nominated and approved judges who are also statists.

But then, we voted in these statists and deserve what we get. As for the statists, as they are not willing to give others freedom, they will never have it. For those who voted for the lesser of two evils, evils is what you got. And I do thank those of you who've voted for libertarians and advocated for freedom.