Member-only story

Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law

Donovan Carter

·15.6k Followers· Follow

Published in Taking Back The Constitution: Activist Judges And The Next Age Of American Law

6 min read

1k View Claps

54 Respond

Save

Listen

The role of activist judges in the American legal system has been a subject of heated debate for decades. Critics argue that activist judges overstep their constitutional bounds by imposing their personal policy preferences on society, while supporters maintain that judicial activism is necessary to protect the rights of minorities and uphold the Constitution.

In this article, we will explore the complex issue of judicial activism, examining its definition, historical evolution, and the ongoing debate surrounding its impact on society. We will also consider the potential implications of judicial activism for the future of American law.

Judicial activism is a term used to describe a judge's philosophy of constitutional interpretation. Activist judges believe that judges should play an active role in shaping the law, even if it means overturning long-standing precedents or striking down laws passed by the legislature.

Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law

by Robert A. Carp

4.9 out of 5

Language	:	English
File size	:	1449 KB
Text-to-Speech	:	Enabled
Screen Reader	:	Supported
Enhanced typesetting	:	Enabled
Word Wise	:	Enabled
Print length	:	333 pages

In contrast, judicial restraint is a philosophy that emphasizes the importance of following the plain meaning of the Constitution and deferring to the decisions of elected officials. Judges who adhere to judicial restraint believe that judges should not substitute their own personal views for the will of the people.

The distinction between judicial activism and judicial restraint is not always clear-cut. Some judges may take a more activist approach to interpreting certain provisions of the Constitution, while taking a more restrained approach to others.

The debate over judicial activism has been a part of the American legal system since its inception. The first major case of judicial activism was Marbury v. Madison (1803),in which the Supreme Court struck down a law passed by Congress. This decision established the principle of judicial review, which gives the Court the power to declare laws unconstitutional.

In the early 20th century, the Supreme Court took a more activist approach to interpreting the Constitution, striking down laws that violated the rights of workers, women, and minorities. This era of judicial activism is known as the "Lochner era," after the case Lochner v. New York (1905),in which the Court struck down a law limiting the hours that bakers could work.

In the late 20th century, the Supreme Court became more conservative, and judicial activism declined. However, the issue has remained a topic of debate, with some arguing that judicial activism is necessary to protect the rights of minorities and uphold the Constitution, while others argue that it is a form of judicial overreach.

The debate surrounding judicial activism is complex, with strong arguments on both sides.

Protects the rights of minorities: Activist judges can use their power to strike down laws that violate the rights of minorities, even if those laws are supported by the majority.
Upholds the Constitution: Activist judges can interpret the Constitution in a way that protects its core principles, even if that means overturning long-standing precedents.
Checks the power of the other branches of government: Activist judges can use their power of judicial review to check the power of the legislative and executive branches of government.

Judicial overreach: Critics argue that activist judges overstep their constitutional bounds by imposing their personal policy preferences on society.
Undermines the democratic process: Critics argue that judicial activism undermines the democratic process by allowing judges to strike down laws passed by elected representatives.
Leads to uncertainty in the law: Critics argue that judicial activism leads to uncertainty in the law, as judges can change the meaning of the Constitution at any time.

The future of judicial activism is uncertain. The Supreme Court has become increasingly conservative in recent years, and it is possible that the Court will become even more conservative in the future. This could lead to a decline in judicial activism.

However, it is also possible that the Supreme Court will become more liberal in the future. This could lead to an increase in judicial activism, as liberal judges would be more likely to use their power to strike down laws that they believe violate the Constitution.

Ultimately, the future of judicial activism will depend on the political makeup of the Supreme Court and the values of the American people.

Judicial activism is a complex issue with strong arguments on both sides. It is important to understand the different perspectives on judicial activism in order to make informed decisions about the future of the American legal system.

As we move into the next age of American law, it is likely that the debate over judicial activism will continue. It is up to each individual to decide whether they believe that activist judges are necessary to protect the rights of minorities and uphold the Constitution, or whether they believe that judicial activism is a form of judicial overreach.

Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law

by Robert A. Carp

4.9 out of 5