“judicial activists”
In recent years, a number of judges have been accused of being “judicial activists” (p. 281). What is meant by this? Please research this concept and explain why do some criticize the idea of activist judges?
Judicial activism is a term used to describe when judges make rulings that go beyond existing laws and instead rely on their own values or personal beliefs. It occurs when judges use their power to interpret the law in ways that are outside of legal precedent or legislative intent (Hare, 2017). Judicial activists may also attempt to achieve a specific social outcome related to public policy or politics through their court ruling (Hare, 2017). This form of decision-making has raised concerns among some who view it as an abuse of judicial power and a breach of the separation of powers between branches of government.
Those opposed to judicial activism argue that the role of judges should be limited only to interpreting existing statutes and applying them objectively without any bias. Critics believe activist decisions by judges can undermine democracy because they shift power away from elected legislators and give it solely over to unelected officials with no accountability for their actions (Hare, 2017). As such, some fear this type of decision-making could lead courts into areas where they don’t belong – like deciding public policy issues which should be handled by legislatures instead.
In addition, critics point out that since many judicial appointments last until mandatory retirement age or death – there is often no way for voters to hold these individuals accountable if they make unpopular decisions. Therefore, opponents contend this creates a situation where those appointed have too much unchecked authority over people’s lives which can lead to unjust results (Hare, 2017) .
Overall then, “judicial activism” is a term used describe when judges go beyond interpreting existing laws and instead draw upon their own values or personal beliefs in making court rulings. Although some believe there is potential benefit in having unelected officials involved in shaping public policy – others caution against giving them too much unchecked authority as they may not always reflect what citizens want due lack of electoral accountability.
