Judicial Activism Vs. Judicial Restraint - 2718 Words

Judicial Activism Introduction When researching for texts written about Judicial Activism, one comes across various authors who wrote and published works about the topic. These works are mainly journals, pamphlet, brochures, newspapers, magazines, and articles. Before delving into the subject matter, Judicial Activism, it is important first to understand what judicial philosophy means. Judicial philosophy can be described as the way that a judge cognizes and interprets the law. Even though laws are universal, they should be applied to particular cases with unique conditions. To conduct this, the law is interpreted by the judge, who determine its meaning and at times the intention of people who wrote it. Among the major types of judicial†¦show more content†¦Judicial activism critics in America claim that the law courts mustn’t assume the authority to intervene in issues that involve ethical and political decisions, thereby disregarding the democracy’s fundamental principles. Contrariwise, a court is, on occasion, considered exaggeratedly restrained and passive the moment it refrains from defending the rule of law at large and individual liberties. This paper’s goal is to look at the various dimensions of judicial activism, for instance, its history and the cases supporting it. It will also look into how judicial activism plays a role in the government, and why there is a necessity for more judges who are activists. The paper will also compare judicial activism with judicial restraint as well as explain which philosophy among the two is more preferable. Judicial Activism As stated earlier, judicial activism is when a court doesn’t confine itself to an interpretations of laws that is reasonable, but rather create laws. Thus, judicial activism refers to judicial rulings assumed to be based on political or personal considerations instead of on the existing law. As seen, the judicial activism essence is when a decision of a judge in a case is grounded upon her political or personal social beliefs, instead of interpreting the law as it is. Basically, the judge alters the law. Rather than saying a certain behavior