This What Judicial Activism Looks Like8 min read

Judicial activism is a term used to describe the actions of judges who take an active role in resolving political or social issues. This can involve striking down laws or regulations that the judge believes are unconstitutional, or issuing rulings that have a broad impact on society.

Supporters of judicial activism argue that it is a necessary check on the power of the legislative and executive branches. They say that it is the job of the judiciary to ensure that the Constitution is interpreted and applied correctly, and that judges should not be afraid to rule against the government when it is acting unconstitutionally.

Critics of judicial activism argue that it is an abuse of power, and that judges should not be making decisions about social or political issues. They say that the legislative and executive branches should be allowed to make decisions without interference from the judiciary, and that the courts should stick to interpreting and applying the law, not making it.

What are examples of judicial activism?

Judicial activism is a term used to describe when a judge interprets the law in a way that is not in line with the original intent of the legislators who created the law. This can happen when a judge believes that the law is unconstitutional or when a judge believes that the law is not being fairly applied.

There are a number of examples of judicial activism. One example is the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States. The Court based its decision on the Constitution’s right to privacy, even though that right is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Another example is the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage in the United States. The Court based its decision on the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law, even though that guarantee is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution.

Some people believe that judicial activism is a bad thing, because it allows judges to make laws instead of legislators. Others believe that judicial activism is a good thing, because it allows judges to protect the rights of people who may not be able to protect themselves.

What is the concept of judicial activism?

Judicial activism is a legal philosophy that holds that the judiciary should interpret the law in a way that promotes social justice and advances the goals of the Constitution. In order to achieve this, judges are often willing to rule against the actions of the other branches of government, or to expand the meaning of the law beyond what is written in order to better protect the rights of individuals or groups.

The philosophy of judicial activism has been around for centuries, and has been used to promote a variety of causes, from the abolition of slavery to the advancement of women’s rights. In its modern form, the philosophy was first articulated by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. in a dissent in the case of Lochner v. New York. In that case, Holmes argued that the Court should overturn a law that limited the number of hours that bakers could work, because it violated the right of bakers to freedom of contract.

Since then, the philosophy of judicial activism has been used to advance a wide variety of causes, including the right to privacy, the right to free speech, and the right to equal protection under the law. In many cases, judicial activism has been used to protect the rights of minority groups that have been marginalized or oppressed.

Critics of judicial activism argue that the philosophy allows judges to make law instead of interpreting it, and that it often results in decisions that are not based on the text of the Constitution. They also argue that judicial activism is often used to advance liberal political causes, and that it undermines the separation of powers between the branches of government.

What is a recent example of judicial activism?

Judicial activism is a term used to describe when a judge uses their power to change or create law. This can be done in a number of ways, such as interpreting the Constitution in a new way, striking down a law as unconstitutional, or ordering a government official to take action.

One recent example of judicial activism is the case of Obergefell v. Hodges. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right. This was a major change in the law, and it was made possible by the justices using their power to interpret the Constitution in a new way.

Another recent example is the case of Trump v. Hawaii. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s travel ban. This was a major victory for the Trump administration, and it was made possible by the justices using their power to strike down a law as unconstitutional.

Finally, a recent example of judicial activism is the case of Janus v. AFSCME. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that public-sector unions cannot collect fees from non-members. This was a major victory for conservatives, and it was made possible by the justices using their power to order a government official to take action.

What type of view does a judicial activist judge have?

A judicial activist judge is one who interprets the law in a way that advances their personal political views. They are not bound by the original intent of the law, or by precedent, and will often overturn existing laws or rulings that they don’t agree with.

Judicial activists believe that they have the right to impose their own views on the rest of society, regardless of the will of the people or the Constitution. They are often criticized for judicial overreach, as they often go beyond their authority in making decisions.

Many people believe that judicial activism is a threat to democracy, as it allows a small number of judges to impose their own views on the rest of the population. It can also lead to confusion and inconsistency, as different judges may interpret the law in different ways.

On the other hand, some people argue that judicial activism is necessary in a democracy, as it allows judges to protect the rights of minorities and ensure that the law is applied fairly. They also argue that it is better for judges to interpret the law than for politicians to do so, as politicians are often influenced by their own political views.

Why is judicial activism good?

Judicial activism is a term used to describe the judiciary’s involvement in the affairs of the government. It is also used to describe the judiciary’s interpretation of the law in order to protect the rights of citizens. Judicial activism is good because it ensures that the government and the law are not abusing the rights of citizens.

The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees certain rights to citizens, including the right to due process and the right to equal protection under the law. The judiciary is responsible for ensuring that the government and the law do not abuse these rights. Judicial activism is one way that the judiciary can protect the rights of citizens.

Judicial activism can also help to ensure that the government is following the law. For example, the judiciary can rule that a law is unconstitutional. This can help to ensure that the government is not passing unconstitutional laws.

Judicial activism can also help to protect the rights of minority groups. For example, the judiciary may rule that a law that discriminates against a minority group is unconstitutional. This can help to protect the rights of minority groups.

Overall, judicial activism is good because it ensures that the government and the law are not abusing the rights of citizens. It can also help to ensure that the government is following the law, and that minority groups are protected.

Why is judicial activism needed?

In a democracy, the judiciary is meant to be an impartial arbiter of the law. However, in recent years, judicial activism, or the use of the courts to pursue a political agenda, has become increasingly common.

Critics of judicial activism argue that it is undemocratic, as it allows unelected judges to overturn the decisions of elected officials. They also argue that it can lead to judicial overreach, as judges may rule on issues that are not within their jurisdiction.

Supporters of judicial activism argue that it is necessary to protect the rights of citizens, especially when the will of the legislature is not in line with the will of the people. They also argue that it is necessary to ensure that the judiciary is independent from the other branches of government.

Ultimately, the debate over judicial activism is a debate about the role of the judiciary in a democracy. Those who support judicial activism argue that the judiciary should be a powerful check on the other branches of government. Those who oppose judicial activism argue that the judiciary should be a neutral arbiter of the law.

Which is an example of judicial activism quizlet?

What is judicial activism?

Judicial activism is when a judge uses their power to make a political or social change. This can be done by making a ruling that goes against what is written in the law, or by interpreting the law in a way that is different from how it has been interpreted in the past.

What is judicial restraint?

Judicial restraint is when a judge follows the law as it is written, and does not use their power to make a political or social change.

What is the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint?

The difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint is that judicial activism is when a judge uses their power to make a political or social change, while judicial restraint is when a judge follows the law as it is written.