What's the
Issue?
Judicial activism is the term used to define judges acting as
lawmakers. In 1803, the U.S. Supreme Court defined its role as accurately
defining what the law is. This means that judges act as interpreters
of the law, if and when the law, or its application, is confusing. In
recent years, judges have left this traditional understanding of judicial
review and have begun legislating from the bench.
What is the Current Debate?
Judicial activism violates the balance of powers laid out in the
state and federal Constitutions. It takes authority away from the elected
legislature, and puts judges in the position of both lawmaker and judge.
When this happens, people lose their right to representation.
A good example of judicial activism is
the Ohio School Funding case.
In this case, the seven justices of the Ohio Supreme Court are
dictating education policy in direct opposition to laws passed by the
General Assembly.
|
|
|
