Judicial activism
Judicial activism used to refer to the situation in which judges ignored the plain meaning of the law as written in order to reach the outcome they desired. An extreme case of judicial activism was Roe v. Wade, in which the judges read into the Constitution a right to abortion that simply was not there. However, the left has now twisted the meaning of the phrase so that it sometimes means overturning a precedent, even if that precedent is inconsistent with the plain meaning of the law, and it sometimes means any decision with which you disagree. The idea is for them to be able to pretend that conservative judges, who adhere to the plain meaning of the law, are just as “activist” as the liberal judges, who make up the law as they go along.
Here is Ann Coulter’s take on it: As former Chief Justice William Rehnquist described the proper role of judicial review in a constitutional democracy, the courts have the last word “as to whether a law passed by the legislature conforms to the Constitution.” It would be every bit as “activist” for the Supreme Court to refuse to strike down a law that violated the Constitution — e.g., Chicago’s anti-gun laws or Congress’ restriction of free speech via the campaign finance laws — as it is for the court to strike down laws that do not violate the Constitution.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
