Judicial Activism

Abstract

Judicial activism is a ruling issued by a judge that overlooks legal precedents or past constitutional interpretations in order to support a political view. Coined by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in 1947, the term “judicial activism” carries multiple definitions. Some argue that a judge is a judicial activist, simply by overturning a prior decision. Others argue that the primary function of the court is to re-interpret elements of the Constitution and assess the constitutionality of laws, and therefore such actions could not be called judicial activism. As a result, the term “judicial activism” relies heavily on how someone interprets the Constitution, as well as someone’s opinion on the role of the Supreme Court in the separation of powers. Judicial activism becomes necessary to put a check on tyranny, born out of a temporary political majority in legislature, which might otherwise seek  to rewrite.