Debate On Judicial Activism

A brief comparison of judicial restraint vs.

Debate on judicial activism. Although debates over the proper role of the judiciary date to the founding of the american republic the phrase judicial activism appears to have been coined by the american historian arthur m. It is not the judicial branches job to impose justice i disagree. The judicial activism debate. Judicial activism occurs where a judge reaches a decision based upon personal or political preferences.

Judicial activism in its most disagreeable form occurs when judges legislate from the bench creating new policy out of thin air rather than ruling on a specific case using existing law and the constitution. Here is a brief overview of the various aspects of the concepts of judicial activism and restraint. But if the judge applies that law in the case the result will be outrageous and unconscionable for either one or both of the parties. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.

It is usually a pejorative term implying that judges make rulings based on their own political agenda rather than precedent and take advantage of judicial discretion. Although the ecj does not seem either a controversial or a very powerful institution of the european union as you remember from the european parliament section its decisions do have a significant influence on the functioning of other institutions and some argue that the ecj has a pro integration agenda. On monday the gw law student chapter of the federalist society hosted a debate on judicial activism versus judicial restraint between the institute for justice s clark neily and me. The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political is.

Our debate is about a particular case where a specific law indubitably apples to the case. And the two parties are in conflict in the case. This type of decision making can be beneficial because of the flexibility it allows. Is the judiciary expected to practice restraint.

Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy that the courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of its decisions. The concept of judicial activism has long been a matter of debate.