1X
Two senior members of the Hawaii bar, Daniel H. Case and Clinton R. Ashford, both former presidents of the Hawaii State Bar Association, argued that the Hawaii Supreme Court — particularly during the tenure of Chief Justice Richardson — had repeatedly crossed the line from interpreting law to making it. Both guests maintained that judicial activism, however popular, undermines the democratic process, erodes predictability in the law, and ultimately harms the public. Case pointed to insurance decisions in which the court, in his view, consistently strained to find coverage against insurers, imposing costs that ultimately fell on policyholders. Ashford drew on his personal experience in the Ashford case to argue that the court had shifted shoreline boundaries, effectively taking private property without compensation under the guise of public policy. Both guests raised concerns about the expansion of native Hawaiian gathering rights onto private and developed land, warning that such rulings threatened property owners' investment-backed expectations. The standing question is whether an activist court that enjoys popular support is nonetheless inflicting long-term legal and economic harm on Hawaii.
Transcript
Read or download the full transcript (.txt). Speaker labels were assigned automatically and may contain errors.
Companion newspaper commentaries
Commentaries by the guests, published in The Honolulu Advertiser around the broadcast.
