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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

    2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

    3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

    4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

    5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

    ADVERTISEMENT