Essay On Judicial Activism
The United States Constitution is the supreme law if the land, produced by our founding fathers more than 200 years ago. However, since the era of Presidents Washington and Jefferson is gone, many things have lost it is original intent, specifically the subject of the judicial review system, better known as judicial activism.
The original intent of the Supreme Court was to accurately define what the law is. Meaning, that judges act as interpreters of the law, when the legal philosophy, or its application, is confusing. Judicial activism is the term used to define judges acting as lawmakers. Judicial activism violates the balance of powers set out in the state and federal Constitutions. It takes authority away from the elected legislature, and puts judges in the posture of both lawmakers and judge. When this occurs, people lose their right to representation. A choice example of judicial activism is the desire to incorporate international law into court decisions. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has proposed implementing such a practice, citing Founding Father and first Chief Justice John Jay as a …show more content…
Actually, by design it is meant to be the weakest. The judicial review or activism was created as nothing more than to review the behavior of other justices. Our founding fathers believed that the Judges were supposed to be “perfect” in some esteem. There was never an expectation for the judicial branch to lead this country. So much so that the Judges were not supposed to pass bills, or laws, especially cornering the military. Many people have been lead to believe that there is nothing that can be done about our Supreme Court Judges, however, article 3 section 1 states that “judges are appointed for the duration of good behavior”. Therefore, in all actuality there can be an impeachment process to get our country back to the original intent of the Founding
The original intent of the Supreme Court was to accurately define what the law is. Meaning, that judges act as interpreters of the law, when the legal philosophy, or its application, is confusing. Judicial activism is the term used to define judges acting as lawmakers. Judicial activism violates the balance of powers set out in the state and federal Constitutions. It takes authority away from the elected legislature, and puts judges in the posture of both lawmakers and judge. When this occurs, people lose their right to representation. A choice example of judicial activism is the desire to incorporate international law into court decisions. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has proposed implementing such a practice, citing Founding Father and first Chief Justice John Jay as a …show more content…
Actually, by design it is meant to be the weakest. The judicial review or activism was created as nothing more than to review the behavior of other justices. Our founding fathers believed that the Judges were supposed to be “perfect” in some esteem. There was never an expectation for the judicial branch to lead this country. So much so that the Judges were not supposed to pass bills, or laws, especially cornering the military. Many people have been lead to believe that there is nothing that can be done about our Supreme Court Judges, however, article 3 section 1 states that “judges are appointed for the duration of good behavior”. Therefore, in all actuality there can be an impeachment process to get our country back to the original intent of the Founding