This essay will explore the role of the judiciary and comment on how that role has evolved. The essay will also explore activism and restrain in courts and judicial matters and explain what it means for courts to practice restraint or activism. Further, the essay will comment on overall importance of the concept of activism in the American judicial scene.
What constitutes the role for the judiciary?
The US judiciary role involves interpreting and applying laws enacted in the US. Through a system of courts including federal appellate and district courts and the Supreme Court, this arm of government has mandate to fairly and impartially resolves disputes about federal laws. This way the judiciary protects American citizen’s rights and liberties. By interpreting the meaning of the law, applying those laws when need arises, and deciding whether regulations infringe on any established constitutional laws, the judiciary, frankly, facilitates attainment of an ideal rule of law in our country. Nonetheless, the judiciary must work in tandem with the legislative and executive government branches to achieve an ideal rule of law.
Notably, the role of the judiciary is dynamic, it is not necessarily set in stone. The aim and strive to protect the rights of the American citizens remains the chief motivating factor for the judiciary. However, with evolution of the American society, comes shifts in judicial power and politics. For instance, traditionally, courts were subject to various limitations. A notable limitation was that access to courts was limited to only people who could prove an adverse impact of the government’s decision on their livelihoods (Ginsberg et al., 2011). Simply disagreeing with government did not warrant access to the court system. Ginsberg et al. (2011) notes that this was a significant limitation on the role of the judiciary in protecting American rights and liberties. However, policies established in the sixties and seventies allowed for the role of the judiciary to expand. The mentioned limitation, for instance, was dealt with through the liberalization of the idea that any group can, in a federal court, challenge an administrative agency’s decision (Ginsberg et al., 2011). Such transformations, among others, depict the dynamism of the judiciary’s role and how it responds to our evolution while always aiming to protect American rights and liberties.
What does it mean for a court to be activist?
Activist courts are major proponents for interpreting the law in ways that shape the law in new perspectives, and through this, advance social and political evolution. Judges in activist courts believe that they should examine the broader societal implications of their decisions; thus, they have higher propensity to interpret the law in a way that promotes justice and equality, even when doing so requires going beyond the words of the constitution or a specific statute. By departing from the conventional or literal meaning of the law, judges in an activist court sometimes “strike out in new directions” when presiding over cases. These judges do this when they see innovative interpretations in legal and constitutional perceptions, especially if such interpretations are socially desirable and will positively impact the American society (Ginsberg et al., 2011).
The limitation of the judiciary role noted in the paragraphs before, for instance, was done away with through some form of judicial activism. Evolving to a more accessible judicial system required going beyond the then interpretation of the Constitution to one that protected the rights and liberties by increasing the scope of who has access to the judiciary whenever they have a claim against any administrative agency. Interpreting the law in such novel perspectives is imperative especially with our ever evolving social and political livelihoods. Activist judges seek to leverage on that evolution and develop newer ways in which we understand the Constitution thus furthering ways in which we protect previously unnoticed infringements on American rights and liberties.
Overall, activist courts been vital in advancing social causes and protection of diverse rights. However, not everyone is pro-activist courts. Critics exist. For instance, some critics note that departing from the intent with which the Constitution’s framers had when establishing it can lead to judges with arbitrary and unpredictable decisions. Nevertheless, the merits and demerits of activist courts are only debate matters. We however, can never miss the profound effect those courts have had on the American legal system.
What does it mean for a court to show judicial restraint?
Critics of judicial activism are likely to be proponents of judicial restraint. A court that shows judicial restraint is one which makes decisions by strictly following the words of the Constitution and not veering written laws and regulations. Judges that show judicial restraint argue that it is imperative to interpret and apply the Constitution or a statute as it is written, without regards to personal beliefs or policy preferences. Such judges believe that interpreting the law in this manner is imperative to ensure fair and impartial application of the law. In addition, such judges concede that, veering off of the conventional interpretation of the Constitutions may result in decisions that are partial, unfair and unconstitutional. Such decisions may have extensive adverse implications including the loss of trust in the legal system by the public.
If both liberals and conservatives engage in judicial activism, what is the role of the concept of “activism?”
Ginsberg et al. (2011) notes that liberalism and conservatism should not be confused with activism and restraint in judicial matters. Conservatives and liberals can both engage in judicial activism; being conservative does not necessarily mean you support restraint, neither does being liberal point to your dedication to supporting judicial activism. Judicial activism is a tool with which judges ensure the law is fairly and impartially applied. Courts must examine instances where interpretation of the law impedes other freedom in previously unforeseen aspects. Thus, whether you are liberal or conservative, in situations where conventional interpretation of the constitution can be innovatively improved to suit current American society and livelihoods, and be socially desirable among all citizens, you are bound to promote such innovative interpretations for the good of society and to protect fundamental American rights and liberties.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the major role of the judiciary is to ensure the nation attains a rule of law under the government. By working together with the other branches of governments, the judiciary promotes protection of the rights and liberties of the American citizens. In the judiciary, courts may be practicing activist or restraint when interpreting the Constitution. Activist courts are for more innovative interpretations of the Constitution, when need be, while courts practicing restraints tend to strictly follow the law as it is written. Nonetheless, the use of judicial activism, despite having various criticisms from courts practicing judicial restraints, is imperative in developing a judicial system that can adapt to the dynamic legal intricacies of the American society.
References
Ginsberg, B., Lowi, T. J. & Weir, M. (2011). We The People: An Introduction to American Politicss. 8th ed. W. W. Norton & Company.
write