nsTeam1RO, nsTeam1RW, nsTeam1_talkRO, nsTeam1_talkRW
13,818
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − "Judicial activism" is a term used to critique judges who are seen to fail in their duty to apply laws created by the Legislature or who rule contrary to established precedent (generally that of the U.S. Supreme Court). Most often, a charge of "judicial activism" is an accusation that judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law. Occasionally, the term also applies to rulings that do not give due deference to agency decisions, as required under ''Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,'' 467 U.S. 837 (1984). A critique of judicial activism is not itself partisan -- there are judicial activists on both the left and the right -- but in contemporary America, the charge has most often been made by rightist pundits.+ + + +
Added 'legislating from the bench'''
'''Judicial activism''' is a term used to critique judges who are seen to fail in their duty to apply laws created by the Legislature or who rule contrary to established precedent (generally that of the U.S. Supreme Court). Most often, a charge of "judicial activism" is an accusation that judges substitute their own political opinions for the applicable law. Occasionally, the term also applies to rulings that do not give due deference to agency decisions, as required under ''Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,'' 467 U.S. 837 (1984). A critique of judicial activism is not itself partisan -- there are judicial activists on both the left and the right -- but in contemporary America, the charge has most often been made by rightist pundits.
Another similar term is '''legislating from the bench''' where instead of interpreting existing law, an activist judge will take upon himself or herself the role of creating legislation in his ruling, and thereby giving himself the powers of Congress instead of the powers assigned to the judicial branch.
[[category:law]]
[[category:law]]