Judicial Activism: Interpreting Law and Supreme Court Cases

This essay provides an analysis of judicial activism, focusing on whether judges should interpret the Constitution or simply apply it. It begins with an introduction to judicial activism, contrasting it with judicial restraint, and discusses arguments for and against judicial interpretation. The essay examines the importance of judicial activism in handling sensitive issues and its role in social reform, using examples from Supreme Court cases such as Apple Inc. v. Pepper and Gamble v. United States to illustrate the complexities of judicial decision-making. The author explores the implications of judges interpreting the law, and the impact on the Constitution. The essay concludes with a summary of the arguments, and emphasizes the need for judges to consider both the Constitution and their own interpretations. The author believes that judges must be independent and interpret the law.

Running head: JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
Judicial Activism

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM 1
Introduction
The judicial activism refers to the judicial rulings, which are suspected of being based
on their personal opinion rather than dealing with the relevant law. It is also been considered
as an opposite of judicial restraint. The Judicial Activism will be discussed and analysed
whether the judges should interpret the decision or may simply apply the Constitution. It will
be analysed with the current examples of the cases of the SC and will think on the idea if one
can predict the judgement.
Arguments
Sometimes the Judicial activism is required because laws can be unclear or they can
be construed in many other ways. Judicial Activism also increases the public engagement in
politics with the law that allows for direct democracy. Judicial System is necessary because
there are some sensitive issues that are required to be handled with care that cannot be
allowed with certain laws. There is the role of judicial system starts that allow judges to use
their personal judgement in the situations where the law fails. It has some other benefits such
as it is a method of social reform as the government in the U.S allows the Supreme Court and
the other federal courts to involve in judicial activism. In some cases of the Supreme Court
the judicial Activism becomes necessary such as by taking examples of recent docket case of
the SC. In Apple Inc v. Pepper (Docket 17-204) case, the issue is whether the consumers can
anyone who delivers the goods to them for the non-trust damages based on the cost that has
been set by the third parties. This case applies the rule "Illinois Brick doctrine" that was
given in the old case by the Supreme Court. Thus, the judge can take help from the case but
does not directly apply the Constitution. In some cases, it is required to see other factors that
has happened and for that interpretation is necessary (Schacter, 2018).
The Supreme Court judges interpreted the law that can be viewed as proactive or
destructive in accordance with the individual’s belief. However, individuals’ belief does not
matter in the judicial system. Many judges do not agree with the constitution on some issues
but the democracy works is that the constitution is a living representative document of the
people. The people elect their representative who must add to the Constitution and speaks for
them. It can be concluded that the Constitution is the majority of the people of the United
States opinion. If the Constitution has not been used as, a source of justice than the justice

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM 2
will go in the hands of individuals that will contradicts the structure of the democracy. It can
also be said that judges are not one who make laws. In Gamble v. United States (Docket 17-
646) case, it is the case that is questioning the Constitution that the separate sovereign
exception to the double jeopardy should been overruled. The judges must take Constitution
into consideration in this case cause or else it can be destructive for the Constitution
(Lindquist, 2017).
Analysis
If personally been analysed that if the judges will give the decision by only
considering the Constitution than the judgements will already been assumed or been
predicted. So in my personal views the judges must be independent and they must interpret
the law. A judge is required to interpret the Constitution written and been informed about the
history and the tradition (Kmiec, 2004).
Conclusion
It can be analysed from both the arguments that the judges must give the decision by
interpreting the Constitution and not only Constitution into the consideration.

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM 3
References
Apple Inc v. Pepper (Docket 17-204)
Gamble v. United States (Docket 17-646)
Kmiec, K. D. (2004). The origin and current meanings of judicial activism. Cal. L. Rev., 92,
1441.
Lindquist, S. A. (2017). Judicial activism in State Supreme Courts: institutional design and
judicial behavior. Stan. L. & Pol'y Rev., 28, 61.
Schacter, J. S. (2018). Putting the Politics of “Judicial Activism” in Historical
Perspective. The Supreme Court Review, 2017(1), 209-272.