Free US Law Dictionary
BETA
Judicial Activism
Judicial activism is a term used in the United States that is open to some controversy concerning its true meaning. Its meaning before the 1990's was taken to be a pejorative term for misuse of judicial power for the purpose of obtaining a predetermined judgement based on the political convictions of the judges without regard to the U.S. constitution, written law or legal precedent. After the year 2000 it was adopted by members of the opposition party to mean the appointment of judges for the purpose of political expediency.
Judicial Decision Making Does Not Require Judicial Activism: A Response to Prof. Althouse
Ann Althouse, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin, has written an interesting (but flawed) piece arguing that "judicial activism" on abortion will not disappear if the Supreme Court reverses Roe v...
"In Defense of Judicial Activism: D.C. v. Heller and the failures of conservative judicial restraint."
"In Defense of Judicial Activism: D.C. v. Heller and the failures of conservative judicial restraint." Damon W. Root has this essay online at Reason.
CWA: Obama?s First Judicial Nominee Defines Judicial Activism
Concerned Women for America has issued this press release: "Concerned Women for America (CWA) President Wendy Wright said, 'David Hamilton proved the liberal American Bar Association correct when they rated him as ?not qualified? for his current post...
Segall on Judicial Activism & Judicial Responsibility
Eric Segall (Georgia State University - College of Law) has posted Reconceptualizing the Judicial Activism Debate as Judicial Responsibility: A Tale of Two Justice Kennedys (Arizona State Law Journal, Vol...
Judicial activism
The common law is an interesting and organic beast. To explain: our basic system of law is judge-made law. The common law became somewhat inflexible in medieval times, and thus many litigants started appealing to the King...
Judicial Activism: Another Take
For those interested in Jack's post on 'judicial activism," I have a different take on Politico. It argues that the real problem with the phrase is that it's used to describe results we don't like, when we should be focusing on how the judge ended up there in the first place.
















