Is judicial activism really a bad thing?

July 27, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Judicial activism – why is it such a dirty term?

Bring up the idea judicial activism in certain groups of people and you’ll get a different response.

There are those on one side who believe judges should not interpret the law using their own personal or political views. The law is the law and you stick to it.

Others think the interpretation of the law needs to change depending on the times. Can a law written 100 years ago still apply today? Perhaps.

I bring this up because of a quote I read from a person associated with the Indiana Family Institute. This is a group that works to strengthen families and wants to make sure that marriage is between a man and a woman only.

“With the stroke of a pen, a judge can say the statute is unconstitutional, as they have in Iowa, Massachusetts, California, and elsewhere,” according to Curt Smith. “So we want to remove the issue of what is marriage, what is family from judicial activism.”

And the term comes up it seems any time someone is nominated for a judicial position. Some cried judicial activist toward U.S. Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan. The newest justice, Sonia Sotomayor, also faced that criticism. Our very own Judge David Hamilton, now on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, was called an activist during his nomination process to that court.

How can we not expect judges to interpret the law in a new way when certain issues have never been addressed? Can we really rely on the Constitution and decades-old law when it comes to legal issues with the Internet? Times change and there will be times when judges are forced to make a decision without the safety net of established law. If they didn’t, imagine the standstill in our courts system or the lack of redress in many cases.

The term “judicial activism” is just another way to inject politics into a position that should be as free from political influence as possible. Based on my brief research of the term, it’s a relatively new one, invented in the middle of the last century. Perhaps they didn’t have a way to describe this phenomenon appropriately before this came about, or perhaps the idea of activism didn’t matter as much.

But, it does seem any time a judge or someone with the possibility of becoming a judge makes a decision that one group doesn’t agree with, the opponents cry “activist!”

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Seperation of Powers
    The legislature's job is to make the laws, not the judges! Judicial activism implies that the judges are legislating from the bench, something that should be reserved for the body of law the represents the people.

    Yes, judicial activism is a bad thing even while "times change." Don't you think that the founding fathers realized that issues change with the times? Yet they still agreed on a separation of powers. Why might that be?
    • Activism Exists
      What else do you call it when the SCOTUS discovers a right to destroy your unborn child in the Bill of Rights? What else do you call overturning the clear will of the people by instituting same-sex marriage (see California, etc.)?
    • Judge
      In my one and only dealing with the court it was as if Judge LynnMurray of Howard County practiced judicial activism at her discretion. Using it in a chauvinistic and unprofessional manner.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

    2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

    3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

    4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

    5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

    ADVERTISEMENT