Discussing the legal system’s proper function is complex and contentious. Due to different views on how the legal system should work in a democracy, no answer can please everyone. Some individuals say the judiciary has become so powerful that judges are legislating from their seats. They point to cases where the courts have reversed laws passed by the legislature, even if most people supported them. Furthermore, some believe courts should only interpret the law as written. They say the legislature, not the courts, should set public policy.
Others say the judiciary simply interprets the law and protects citizens’ rights. They argue that courts have always had the power to overturn unlawful laws, which is crucial to democracy. They also say the judiciary must protect people’s rights, even if it means overturning legislature-approved laws. Additionally, the courts have always retained this power (Gibson 24). The judiciary’s function may be debated for years. This question presents many challenging legal, political, and philosophical issues, making it unanswerable. However, the legal system’s operation affects our governance. Thus, this should be considered.
An appropriate role for the judiciary upholds the principles of justice, fairness, and the rule of law. The judicial system supports the Constitution and applies laws correctly. It mediates disputes, protects rights, and ensures legal equality. The judicial branch’s function in checking the executive, legislative, and judicial additions is crucial. By interpreting and applying the law, the judiciary keeps the legislative and executive departments within their constitutional jurisdiction. This function maintains the separation of powers and inhibits authority abuse.
The legal system safeguards individual rights and liberties. It protects Constitutional rights like free expression, religion, and a fair trial. The judicial system is unbiased and protects people’s legal rights. The legal system also resolves disputes and ensures justice for everybody. It allows people and organizations to discuss their issues and strive to fix them. Maintaining social order and attaining social justice require this role. Let’s examine an example of the legal system’s proper operation. Imagine a legislatively passed law being challenged for violating citizens’ constitutional rights. The court is crucial in interpreting the Constitution and determining whether a statute breaches it (Gibson, 30). The judiciary should respect the Constitution, preserve individual rights, mediate disputes, and check the other government departments. The judiciary strikes down unconstitutional laws to safeguard individual rights and justice. The judicial system helps maintain a fair, just, and lawful society by completing these tasks.
“Judicial restraint” and “activist court” these two legal terms are interchangeable. Activist courts overturn unjust or unlawful laws. Judicial restraint makes courts more likely to adhere to legislative judgments, even if they disagree. Both methods have pros and cons. Activist courts protect public rights and check legislative power. An activist court can overstep its jurisdiction, usurp legislative power, and make policy decisions that elected politicians should make. This weakens the separation of powers. Both approaches have their advantages and disadvantages. An activist court checks the legislature’s authority, protecting citizens’ rights (Hellman, 253). This describes an activist court. An active court may overstep its bounds, usurping the legislature’s power and making policy decisions that elected legislators should make. An activist court is seen as doing this inappropriately. This may violate the separation of powers.
Over the last few decades in the United States, the judicial system’s power has grown significantly. This is partially attributable to the ever-increasing complexity of the legislation, which has made it increasingly challenging for legislators to keep up with its ever-changing nature. In addition, it can be attributed to the fact that the judicial system has shown a willingness to overturn legislation that, in their opinion, violates the Constitution.
Judicial Activism
Judicial activism is multifaceted. Thus, there is no universal description. However, “judicial activism” refers to a court’s ruling that goes beyond the judiciary’s traditional role. This can include rulings that reject precedents, overrule legislation, or make policy decisions usually left to elected officials. Judicial activism has two main camps. Conservatives hold the first view that the political process should limit the courts. They argue that courts should interpret the law as written and not make policy decisions (Augustyn, paragraph 1). Liberals believe that the judiciary must uphold the rights of the people, even if it means reversing laws passed by the legislature. They argue that the courts are necessary to check executive, legislative, and judicial power.
The US debate about judicial activism has grown in recent years. High-profile court cases like Citizens United overturned campaign financing rules have stoked this issue. This case sparked this debate. Liberals say the courts protect people’s rights, while conservatives say they’re too activist and involved in politics.
Judicial activism will undoubtedly be debated for years. Whether active judges should be praised is a complex topic. However, it is crucial to understand “judicial activism” and why it is controversial. Partisans use “judicial activism” often. Conservatives use the term to describe court rulings they strongly disagree with, whereas liberals use it to describe ones they agree with. Due to this, judicial activism conversations might be difficult (Augustyn, paragraph 4). Understanding “judicial activism” is essential before discussing it. Judges who make judgments based on their own beliefs are called judicial activists. Judges who go above their duties are called judicial activists. They may overturn policies they believe violate the Constitution or interpret current laws to expand civil rights.
Judicial activism has pros and cons. Judicial activism may be beneficial. This can help even when elected officials don’t safeguard rights. It could also enhance civilization. Judicial activism may also contribute. It provides unelected judges with lawmaking power, which might undermine democracy. Judges can interpret the law according to their beliefs, leading to inconsistent and unpredictable judgments(Hellman 253). Personal judgement determines whether activist judges are doing the right thing. There is no right or wrong answer—each person must decide for himself. Before forming an opinion, you must understand what judicial activism is and why it is controversial.
Judicial activism is not polarized. Some judges are more activist than others. Remember that the judicial system is constantly changing. It’s likely to change again. Judges may have to make activist decisions. Even if the legislative and executive branches have adopted a bill, a court can invalidate it if it violates the Constitution. Judicial activism and restraint may blur in some cases. A judge may interpret a statute to improve people’s rights even if it doesn’t explicitly state those rights. Even without legal protection, this can happen. The judicial branch interprets and applies laws to individual instances. The court system also protects individual rights and interests. This may force courts to be more activist in some circumstances.
It’s hard to foresee judicial activism’s future. The judiciary may grow more activist as judges strike down unconstitutional laws. One possible future situation is this. Judges may become more careful if they appreciate the elected branches of government. Time will indicate judicial activism’s future. Judicial activism is not black-and-white, though. Judicial behaviour and court function change over time. Judicial activism’s merits are debatable, and both sides have valid points (Augustyn, paragraph 6). Judicial activism is necessary to protect individual rights when the political arms of government cannot or will not. Judicial activism can also promote societal advancement, they say. They believe court activism may advance society.
Judicial activism permits unelected judges to make legal decisions, which opponents say weakens democracy. Since judges can interpret the law according to their own opinions, they believe judicial activism might lead to contradictory and unpredictable rulings. Personal judgment determines whether activist judges are doing the right thing. There is no right or wrong answer—each person must decide for himself. Before forming an opinion, one must understand what judicial activism is and why it is controversial. Knowing the pros and cons of judicial activism can help you decide.
Work Cited
Augustyn, Adam. “Judicial Activism | Definition, Types, Examples, & Facts | Britannica.” Www.britannica.com, 2023, www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-activism#:~:text=What%20is%20judicial%20activism%3F. Accessed 1 July 2023.
Gibson, James L. “Judges’ Role Orientations, Attitudes, and Decisions: An Interactive Model*.” American Political Science Review, vol. 72, no. 3, Sept. 2018, pp. 911–24, https://doi.org/10.2307/1955111.
Hellman, Arthur. “Judicial Activism: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” Mississippi College Law Review, vol. 21, Jan. 2022, p. 253, scholarship.law.pitt.edu/fac_articles/257/. Accessed 1 July 2023.
write