Judicial Activism Essay Example

Stan Lee once said, “with great power comes great responsibility.” Meaning those we trust to uphold the law should do everything in their power to attain this baseline. Judicial activism allows those in the judicial branch to use the power we grant them to be proactive and make changes based on what they see fit given the situation based on their expertise. Judicial activism is the best way for our entrusted jurists to carry out the best interest of the American people.

Federalist 51 provides a prime example of why judicial activism is beneficial to a country. In the document, James Madison mentions how the branches coexist. They control each other and themselves at one time. This idea is called checks and balances. Madison highlights that judicial activism is necessary because it shows the preventative measures the government has taken to ensure that the branches are being kept in check and have separation from one another. Considering that politics plays a role in all branches of government, it is clear that it is present in the judicial branch as well. However, instead of labeling the jurists, they are simply using their own progressive interpretation of the law. The role of a jurist is to defend the rights of all people in the United States, even those not explicitly stated in the constitution. This means that the judicial branch needs equal power to carry out this goal. The government's use of checks and balances and separation of powers ensures that each branch has its own job that pulls the same amount of weight. Meaning, the government can still keep the judicial branch in check. If a judge decides that a law is unjust, it can be overruled by an appeal. This is proof that judicial activism is a fair and just system for all jurists to utilize. 

In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton discusses the power of judicial review, while arguing that the federal courts should have the authority of determining whether acts are constitutional or unconstitutional. In the document, Hamilton explains that if there is a law passed that violates the rights of an individual, the Supreme Court must have the power to declare the act contrary to the Constitution void. This explanation illustrates the main reason why jurists should pursue activism because it provides them with a way to protect all individuals when rights are violated. The Constitution was established in 1787, 233 years ago. With times changing, especially as of late, judicial activism is crucial. When it comes to judicial review, a jurist is going to lean on one activism or restraint. In all cases, it is better to err on the side of caution and strike down too many laws rather than too few. When it comes to human lives, there is no being too careful. From criminal proceedings to issues involving immigration, a jurist’s decision matters. If they can incorporate their own thoughts into their work, they will be more passionate about their cases and more inclined to make the right decision based on a loose interpretation of The Constitution. 

However, some may argue that judicial activism gives the jurists too much power and usurps authority from the legislative branch. While this is a fair assumption given that the legislative branch’s main purpose is to draft and propose laws, however, a deeper understanding is necessary. The judicial branch is responsible for deciding the meaning of laws, how to apply them to real situations, and whether a law breaks the rules of the Constitution. Judicial activism is defined as a philosophy where courts should go “beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of its decisions.” The judiciary handles more of the interpretation of laws, which is the basis of judicial activism. The legislative branch’s power is not being usurped, rather supported by another school of thought. If the point of view is not agreed upon, the law in question can be overruled with an appeal to another court. There is a chance that a state affair would start before a local judge and be appealed to the Supreme Court. It could also transition into a federal case, meaning the case would be heard multiple times before a final resolution. In conclusion, there are many safeguards in place to prevent one branch from overpowering another. Judicial activism means all American people’s rights will be protected and thought about by jurists in moments of conflict. This philosophy is the way to allow jurists to carry out thought-through interpretations of the law with our best interest in mind.