“The judge will actually collaborate with the government in coming up with hypothetical justifications for a law in order to bend over backwards and uphold whatever the government is doing,” says Clark Neily, attorney at the Institute for Justice and author of the new book, Terms of Engagement: How Our Courts Should Enforce the Constitution’s Promise of Limited Government. “You don’t get a neutral arbiter.”
Neily sat down with Reason TV’s Zach Weissmueller to discuss what Neily describes as an ongoing pattern of “judicial abdication” in America.The judiciary, he says, was meant to stand as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority, a defender of individual rights. Instead, it has become a mere enabler of legislators and government agencies. Neily argues that charges of “judicial activism” are overblown in a time when what’s needed is greater “judicial engagement,” or, a real grappling with the meaning of the Constitution and its application as a check on government power.
Approximately 9 minutes. Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Shot by Tracy Oppenheimer, Lexy Garcia, and Gabrielle Cole.
Visit for downloadable versions, and subscribe to Reason TV’s Youtube Channel for daily content like this.
ReasonTV
source
.jpg?1668094046 "🔴LIVE UPDATES (Day 21): Public Order Emergency Commission investigates Trudeau’s use of Emergencies Act")
