Judicial Activism

A detailed Summary of Judicial Activism

Judicial Activism is a doctrine that describes the way a court should actively access its' power as a check to the activities of governmental bodies, when it is thought that those bodies have exceeded their authority. Roger Clegg, vice president of the National Legal Center for the Public Interest describes his definition a little differently. He writes that it is the act of a judge abusing his/her power by asserting his/her opinion of what the law should be, instead of what it really is. Clegg feels that in its' history the Supreme Court has often constructed new constitutional rights with no basis from constitutional background. Roger Clegg is a strong opponent of judicial activism. He also feels that judges in today's courts are setting up policies, which they have no competence in doing, at the state and national level. Clegg says that policymaking needs to be left in the hands of elected officials. Judges are setting up gay-rights ordinances in Colorado and making welfare policy for illegal immigrants in California (Clegg p.246). According to Clegg these are policies that legislative branch should be dealing with, not the judicial branch. When judges take on policymaking they take it out of the hands of qual

The Judiciary system was designed to be the least dangerous branch (Clegg p.247). However, as pressure increases for greater response to issues in the world, this branch has received greater attention. In today's society being restraint and not allowing personal views to interfere with your jobs' responsibility requires a great deal more energy. Judicial activism is still used as a check on the other branches. In my opinion activism has at times been abused, but there is good reason for its' existence. One way to help solve any unnecessary judicial control could be to write laws that can be easier to interpret and facilitate. Realistically, the only way to keep judicial activism out of the system is to make political executives and legislators lose political popularity by appointing activism judges.

Clegg writes that judges at any level must face great internal and external pressures to be activist from the media and political opinion. In many social atmospheres judges get greater acknowledgement if he/she is known for speeding up the political process. Also interest groups love to work with only one or two judges to pass a particular policy than working with an entire electorate. However, being an activist means that you are also susceptible to personal, social, and political pressures to refrain from continuing activism. With great pressure to choose one side or another it can be quite easy for a mediocre judge to make a bad judgment.

Clegg also writes that many people are confused over the real meaning to the idea of judicial activism. Some individuals think of activism as being on the ball or energetic. Likewise, being restraint would mean lazy and letting the caseload pile up. This is the way many individuals who do not understand see activism superficially. A more complicated view, however, still incorrect is when any decision that produces judicial power

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Roger Clegg, Warren Rehnquist, According Clegg, Center Public, Judicial Activism, Kennedy Court, Supreme Courts', African Americans, Chief Justice, supreme court, judicial activism, versus wade, personal views, roe versus, roe versus wade, clegg writes, hands elected officials, activism supreme, court constructed, times vote, constructed constitutional, court constructed constitutional,

Approximate Word count = 1280
Approximate Pages = 5 (250 words per page double spaced)

Category: Miscellaneous