Judicial Activism

Judicial Activism

Introduction

Judicial activism is known to occur when a judge rules contrary to established precedent (Conservapedia , 2007 . Political scholars use the term to describe the disposition of judges to take account of outcomes , public policy issues , as well as attitudinal preferences while interpreting the applicable law in existence . Judicial activism is considered the antonym of judicial restraint . What is more , the term is often used pejoratively in the of legal judgments that are based on a specific agenda that is thought to be endorsed by a judge (Judicial Activism

, 2007

Today , judicial activism has a variety of meanings , simply because supposed activism with regards to legal judgments could occur in a variety of ways (Sowell , 1989 . The most debated cases of judicial activism occur when courts of law given the job of exercising judicial review strike down those statutes which they think are unconstitutional Given that there are a variety of interpretations of the Constitution that range from strict constructionist views to the interpretations of the living constitution , most controversial judgments that strike down a statute are labeled by the critics as judicial activism (Judicial Activism

Critics of judicial decisions abound , both in the government and outside of it . Thus , Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah and Sam Brownback of Kansas , two Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee , claim There 's an old saying in the legal community : `Bad facts make bad law ' Activist judges continue to prove that bad judges make bad law The Senators mention a

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

Page 2

decision made on 20 January 2005 to explain that extreme judicial activism is also possible , and can be quite harmful as well as ridiculous seeing as the judges of the nation are responsible for bad laws in such cases . The decision in question concerned the United States versus Extreme Associates case which revealed how judicial activism can truly hurt the interests of society . The Senators describe the case thus

The Justice Department had brought a 10-count indictment against a company called

Extreme Associates , which produces films that , according to one report "even porn veterans

find disturbing " Extreme co-owner Janet Romano , whose "professional " name is Lizzy

Borden , admitted in a May 2001 interview that women in their films receive real physical

beatings . Her husband , Robert Zicari , boasted that the films - which depict rape , torture , and

murder - represent "the depths of human depravity " and proudly admitted that the ones

involved in the indictment meet the legal definition of obscenity

When the people at Extreme sent these films through the mail they violated federal anti-

obscenity statutes . Yet what should have been a slam-dunk conviction turned into a ruling that

these statutes are unconstitutional . When a judge avoids ruling on what is in the Constitution

by ruling on something that isn 't , however , you know something political is afoot . U .S

District Judge Gary Lancaster of Western Pennsylvania , said that the indictment against

Extreme violated not the First Amendment 's right to free speech , but an unwritten

constitutional...