Judicial activism is when there are court rulings based on what is suspected to be purely political or personal reasoning. What this basically means is that a judge, instead of abiding by the existing laws, intertwines their own personal feelings into a conviction or sentencing. This personal interpretation of the laws is cause for quite a bit of heated debate in the United States, especially with so many cases of judicial activism popping up. Let’s take a look at the facts from both sides of the fence to form an educated opinion on this matter.
Pros of Judicial Activism
There are many issues that are sensitive, which need to be handled with a certain amount of care that many laws don’t allow. Judicial activism allows a judge to use his personal judgement in situations where the law fails.
Trust In Judges
Judges have sworn to bring justice to the country, this does not change with judicial activism. It allows them to do what they see fit, within reasonable limits of course. This is a good thing because it shows the instilled trust that is placed in the judicial system and it’s judgments.
Cons of Judicial Activism
When judicial activism is used, it is like the laws do not apply. The judges can over ride any law that there is, which technically means there are no laws in the judges eyes.
Often times when judicial activism is exercised it is done for solely selfish or personal reasons. They may be political, or the judge may have received compensation for his decision.
How Do You Feel About Judicial Activism
With this information, it’s up to you if you will put your trust in judicial activism. Even though it provides benefits, it is significant for you to take a look on its downside. This way, you can also analyze if the judge is always fair in making decisions as well as if he or she is really following the law.