An activist judge, for instance, may have a pronounced history of overturning precedent and active legislation. Moreover, a pattern would likely emerge aligning political and ideological preferences with decisions. An activist judge may be either conservative or liberal in his or her views. One factor that may define an activist is an adherence to personal or political philosophies through judgment regardless of the law.
A judge or court that engages in a policy of judicial restraint, by contrast, may have a history of upholding laws as written, and adhering to precedent. What's on your ballot? Jump to: navigation , search. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
Categories : Philosophy of law Judicial terms and definitions. Voter information What's on my ballot? Where do I vote? How do I register to vote? How do I request a ballot? When do I vote? When are polls open? Who Represents Me? Congress special elections Governors State executives State legislatures Ballot measures State judges Municipal officials School boards. How do I update a page? Election results. Privacy policy About Ballotpedia Disclaimers Login. Related terms. The view that the Supreme Court and other lesser courts should not read the judges' own philosophies or policy preferences into the constitution and laws and should whenever reasonably possible construe the law so as to avoid second guessing the policy decisions made by other governmental institutions such as Congress, the President and state governments within their constitutional spheres of authority.
On such a view, judges have no popular mandate to act as policy makers and should defer to the decisions of the elected 'political' branches of the Federal government and of the states in matters of policy making so long as these policymakers stay within the limits of their powers as defined by the US Constitution and the constitutions of the several states.
A jurist judge or justice who adheres to a philosophy of restraint can be characterized as one who believes that democracy has intrinsic, not just instrumental, value; that the judiciary is the least powerful of the three branches of government; and reveres the values of stability and predictability in lawmaking.
Judicial Activism refers to the philosophy of taking judiciary decisions based not only on traditional laws but also on changing dynamics happening in society. This term was coined by Arthur Schlesinger in the year Judicial activism paved way for the interpretation of laws based on the wider social context. In judicial activism, the judicial decisions would have a mix of political and personal reflection of the judiciary body.
The judiciary body steps in to give decisions favourable to the public when the executive body or government fails to do so. It is this aspect of judicial activism which has gained both appreciation and criticism. Sceptics feel that judicial activism meddles in political decisions which should be kept separate from judiciary.
Their point of the argument is that political decisions have wider motive apart from the announced motive which cannot be understood easily or explained due to some external or internal reasons. Hence, there should be no directives from other body unless and until the fundamental right of a citizen is denied.
But there are so many supporters for judicial activism. Cite this. You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to this content through either of these. Showing a limited preview of this publication:.
Activism and Self-Restraint Activism and Self-Restraint". Chapter Fifteen. Activism and Self-Restraint. In The Judge in a Democracy pp. Princeton: Princeton University Press. The Judge in a Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp.
0コメント