Analysis of Judicial Activism and its Impact in US Politics

This essay explores the concept of judicial activism within the context of US politics. It begins by defining judicial activism and its relationship to the US federal judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, emphasizing its role in upholding the rule of law, judicial independence, and equal justice. The essay delves into the historical context, referencing instances where the Supreme Court's rulings have been characterized by judicial activism. It examines the differing perspectives on judicial activism, including criticisms from political figures and scholars, who argue that it undermines the separation of powers, and the counterarguments from those who support it as a necessary means of adapting the law to changing times. The essay also highlights the role of the federal judiciary during times of emergency and its impact on public interest litigation. Finally, the essay references relevant scholarly sources to provide a comprehensive understanding of the subject.

Running head: PLS 200
PUBLIUS THEORY AND EFFECT IN US POLITICS
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Authors Note

1PLS 200
For its professionalism, the impartiality of its judges and for delivering equal justice
under the law the Federal judiciary of the United States is appreciated all over the world. The US
Court of Justice is an autonomous, national judiciary that offers equal and fair justice within the
constitutional and Congressional jurisdiction. The federal judiciary as a branch of government
protects and strengthens the core principles that the courts represent evolving domestic and
national needs. The core values of the US federal judiciary includes rule of law, excellence,
judicial independence, service, accountability, and equal justice.
The judicial branch of the US government is considered to be the guardian and defender
of civil rights. The vital position of our courts in emergencies is especially significant. In certain
cases, for example, courts can make orders that allow certain public health acts. Courts can also
interfere to prohibit acts on public health which are deemed to interfere unreasonably with civil
rights.
However, a theory has been put forth by the Publius regarding how the federal judiciary
needs to respond in a state of emergency. Judicial activism applies not to current laws, but to
judicial decisions accused of having their foundation on a personal view. This is often used as a
balancing antonym. Controversial political topics are the concept of legal activism and particular
decisions made by activists. Justice advocacy is closely linked to constitutional definition,
legislative construction, and power separation. Barack Obama claimed that an activist judge is
someone, who defied Congress ' will, disregarded democratic procedures and tried to enforce
legal remedies for issues rather than allowing the process to work for itself. The meaning of it is
that any court judge can be an activist. If they are viewed as conservative or liberal does not
matter1.
1 Yung, Corey Rayburn. "Flexing judicial muscle: an empirical study of judicial activism in the Federal
Courts." (2011) Nw. UL Rev. 105: 1.

2PLS 200
However, the phrase ‘judicial activism’ is very confusing since the beginning. The basic
definition already existed before this expression was first used. For instance, the ‘despotic
behavior’ of federalist judges, particularly Chief Justice John Marshall, was stated by Thomas
Jefferson. A judicial review study of effect over the past three decades reveals that the Supreme
Court’s rulings have been characterized by ‘judicial activism’ at various times2.
Nonetheless, this theory has been criticized by several politicians, judges, and scholars.
Political critics accuse the elected government branches or the appointed departments of seizing
the authority and undermining the rule of law and democracy. Whereas the supporters of
‘judicial activism’ argued that in many cases, it is a valid method of judicial review, and that,
with changes in times, the understanding of the law needs to change3.
‘Judicial activism’ still has great importance in the political life of the US today. In the
US, at the time of emergency, the federal judiciary tries to govern the judicial system along with
public interest litigation. It had been observed in the second half of the 20th Century that the
Supreme Court was far more liberal than Congress and State legislatures, and conservatives
appeared to have blamed for striking down state and federal legislation based on alleged liberal
values of the judges4.
Reference
Gillman, Howard. "Party politics and constitutional change: The political origins of liberal
judicial activism." (2006).
2 Roosevelt, Kermit. The myth of judicial activism: making sense of Supreme Court decisions. (Yale University
Press, 2006).
3 Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Frank B. Cross. Measuring judicial activism. (New York: Oxford, 2009).
4 Gillman, Howard. "Party politics and constitutional change: The political origins of liberal judicial activism."
(2006).

3PLS 200
Lindquist, Stefanie A., and Frank B. Cross. Measuring judicial activism. (New York: Oxford,
2009).
Roosevelt, Kermit. The myth of judicial activism: making sense of Supreme Court decisions.
(Yale University Press, 2006).
Yung, Corey Rayburn. "Flexing judicial muscle: an empirical study of judicial activism in the
Federal Courts." (2011) Nw. UL Rev. 105: 1.