Judicial Activism

[MonkeyFoo]

When a judge makes an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution based not on pure logic, but also on the spirit of the times and the needs of the nation, this is known as "judicial activism."

All throughout the history of our judicial system, we have had cases of judicial activism. These cases were very controversial at the times they were made by the Supreme Court, because they created or revoked rights. Some examples are those of the Dred Scott case, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of ed., etc.

Here are some arguments for each side of the debate to get you all started:

- JA is not necessary because the constitution protects our rights as it is. After all, rights are defined by the constitution, so keeping it the same won't violate those rights. We may want a right, but we're really just being asked if you need JA to protect the rights, as in ones we already have, and those are protected by previous judicial rulings and legislation. Furthermore, JA dangerously affords the Judicial branch too much power, because it goes unchecked.

- JA is very necessary to protect all our rights, natural and civil, because the constitution was written with loopholes and biases, and in order to ensure our rights, we must keep the constitution flexible. JA is the only way to achieve this flexibility. Without decisions based on JA, slavery would, for example, still be legal. Women wouldn't be able to vote, either. Also, as we move into the 21st century, we are exposed to new modes of rights violation, such as through computers, and we need to make some decisions independently of the constitution for these, because new problems call for new solutions.

I personally believe that JA is necessary to protect rights, but as far as which side you vote for based on the question posed in the poll, it depends on how you define "rights", and which rights we are talking about here.

Deliberate.