Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judicial tyranny

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. No consensus on the disposition of this article. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Judicial tyranny

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Possibly redirect to Judicial activism, but the article title seems too POV. —Charles O'Rourke 04:55, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep or else Merge with Redirect to Judicial activism and redirect. The term "Judicial tyranny" gets over 50,000 hits on Google. I think Wikipedia needs an article (or part of an article) explaining that the term is essentially a politically charged synonym for judicial activitism (which is not itself a very neutral term). This is not a dictionary definition, It needs context. -- DS1953 06:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Changing my vote to redirect. I still think we need to make it easy for someone who hears this common perjorative to find out what it means. A redirect may also prevent the article from being recreaed. Redirects are cheap.
• Delete. I have added "a more pejorative denotation is "judicial tyranny"" as the second sentence of Judicial activism. I think this is a sufficient problem solver. Marskell 10:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Based on Judge Magney's changes. Whoever decides this consider the before and after. Marskell 09:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Find a better home for explaining this political term. David | Talk 10:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Judicial activism. Bikeable 17:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. This should not be redirected to judicial activism; the two epithets are not synonymous, but refer to fundamentally different ideas. The charge of "judicial tyranny," in its basic/traditional form, is based on the idea that non-elected judges should not be allowed to overturn the policy decisions of elected officials. The charge of "judicial activism," in its basic form, allows that non-elected judges may make such decisions, but that a particular decision (or decisions) lack(s) an appropriate constitutional basis. The epithets are often used interchangeably by partisans of the extreme right, but their usage should not be governing. Judge Magney 01:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to judicial activism. —Seselwa 22:50, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an entirely pointless neologism. No need to redirect. It's also sort of any oxymoron. By definition, a judicial brach, especially in the United States, does not have the ability to be a tyrant--courts rely on the rest of the government to enforce its rulings. Mmmbeer 00:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I agree with Mmmbeer on this one. --Mtrisk 05:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: In response to a request, I have rewritten the page into a text which quite briefly summarizes the ideas I mentioned above and mentions a letter by Thomas Jefferson which is often cited as the origin of the term (in U.S. political discourse). I believe this resolves the issue. Judge Magney 22:41, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.