Mmmmmm... perhaps you are correct.

If I DID have an answer, it would be far more in depth than I'd care to spend the time writing anyways.

What I'm labelling as judicial activism are actions taken by judges that go against MY and most citizens common sense is all.

That it must be recognized that judges are human and prone to making poor decisions and having poor judgement is what I'm talking about.

Just because a "judge" says it's right doesn't make it so.

So it's either a label for people that do not agree with you on everything or you are saying that we should reform our judicial system and change the constitution so that judges are held accountable to the public and serve as representatives then? Should they be elected as those in congress of just required to do what is most popular in opinion polls?

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

No.

Like everyone else here, I'm just pissin' and moanin' about stupid things different branches of our govt. do.

They piss us all off at times I guess

Just complaining at the online complaint dept. I suppose

So you are just complaining about judges that make their own decisions regardless of pressure from ideological groups. Got it.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

If judges shouldn't be held accountable by the people who do you think they should be accountable to? The role of government in a democracy is to be a tool of the people. The people should not be tools of the government.

Obviously you missed the whole part of separation of powers and checks and balances when you studied American government in school. The three branches are different for a reason.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

* Here is a very good writing about legislating from the bench. Lets study it. *

LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH: A DEFINITION AND A DEFENSE


The past few decades have seen a rise in the frequency, intensity, and prominence of attacks against the courts by politicians, commentators, scholars, and interest groups. This project begins exploring the significance, cogency, and relevant political context of these criticisms byexamining the particular claim that judges “legislate from the bench”—somehow acting more like lawmakers than jurists. My research is based on two primary components, the first consisting of an empirical analysisof how the legislating from the bench term is invoked, the secondentailing a systematic normative assessment of these various critiques. Ultimately, I claim that traditional political and scholarly judgmentsabout legislating from the bench need to be supplemented with a morethorough and rigorous account of this vilified practice. Given the nature of our separation of powers system and the evolution of the judiciary’srole, some aspects of legislating from the bench are both inevitable and desirable. By appreciating the different forms that legislating from the bench can assume, this practice can be defended against the nearlyunanimous negative views of scholars and politicians.


The judiciary has been a perennial target of politicians, scholars, andinterest groups—drawing fire for controversial decisions and its status as a purportedly counter-majoritarian institution. Notwithstanding some variation,the frequency, intensity, and prominence of these attacks have generallyincreased since the 1980s.1Over the past two decades, legislative


Officials have frequently and vociferously objected to court decisions in areas such as national security, privacy and abortion, religious expression, and federalism, and have supported proposals designed to limit judicial power. Simultaneously, legal commentators have lamented various trends in “judicial policy making,” and championed their own initiatives for curbing the courts. This contemporary hostility to the judiciary was initially driven, in part, by the political success of the conservative movement beginning with the “Reagan Revolution,” and the opposition of many movement activists to the legacies of the Warren and Burger Courts. But more recently, this opposition has deepened and broadened, brought on by a Congress strongly divided by party, and a Rehnquist Court that invalidated federal legislation (some of it widely popular) at a rate approximately four times greater than the Court’s historical average. The resulting sense amongst political elites of both parties seems to be that the judiciary is “in play” politically—that is, that its ideological character is in some doubt, with the consequence that courts are seen as untrustworthy political allies, and, therefore, as institutions that must be potentially tamed.

What are we to make of the attacks and misgivings that have flowered since the 1980s? On what specific grounds are critics objecting to the courts, and are the terms of their reproach sensible and fair? Do today’s criticisms fall within a historical pattern of recrimination, or do they point to a new political environment requiring new metrics for assessment? Do the recent arguments advanced against the judiciary represent a normal, even salutary operation of the separation of powers, or do they threaten, instead, to undermine the authority and functions of our independent judiciary? This Article begins grappling with these questions by examining a particularly prominent line of contemporary criticism of the courts, the claim that judges “legislate from the bench,” somehow acting more like lawmakers than jurists. In parsing some of the most salient terms through which today’s battles against the judiciary are being waged, this Article attempts to clarify, systematize, and assess objections to the courts.

This effort is important, in part, because it represents an opportunity to bridge the frequently divergent perspectives and concerns of legal scholars, political scientists, and public officials. Today’s politicians who criticize the courts seem to be perturbed about some aspects of judicial behavior, but it is not immediately evident if they are consistent or coherent in their objections. By bringing together legal research (which, on the whole, appears premised on a view that courts should and do engage in decision making that is markedly distinct from legislators and other political officials) and political science scholarship (which tends to presume that courts are “policymakers” much like other political institutions), we can provide a more systematic and clear map of what kinds of judicial behaviors we might find objectionable, and the rationale for condemning these practices. In turn, this taxonomy or typology should assist us in identifying the degree to which different forms of criticism of the courts are well-founded or of dubious merit.

This analysis leads to the conclusion that the traditional manner in which politicians (and scholars) discuss and assess legislating from the bench needs to be supplemented and developed. Given the nature of our separation of powers system and the evolution of the judiciary’s role, some aspects of legislating from the bench are both inevitable and desirable. In short, this Article makes the case that by appreciating the different forms that legislating from the bench can assume, the practice can be defended and even embraced, notwithstanding widespread political and scholarly disapproval.

* In otherwords legislating from the bench can and DOES happen.

Maybe educational for all ? *

...there is some evidence that concerns about the judiciary acting like a lawmaking institution are resonating with the public. For example, a 2005 survey conducted by the American Bar Association found that 56% of respondents agreed with the statement that “judicial activism” has reached a“crisis” and that judges “routinely overrule the will of the people, invent new rights and ignore traditional morality.”

Decisions on many things the courts have to handle are always going to be controversial to some people so does that make it all activism? It also seems like the article is still defining activism by view that do not agree with the writer of the piece. There are usually activists on both sides of controversial issues.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

This really is a long read but well worth the time spent. You say:

There are usually activists on both sides of controversial issues.

The article itself states:

Most obviously, “legislating from the bench” seems to be the phrase of choice for many contemporary critics of the court, especially conservative politicians, although the term has also been invoked by ideological liberals and academicians.

I don't agree with either using the term because both conservatives and liberals shouldn't act as if anything that doesn't agree with their ideology is somehow not legitimate.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

They both do though.

So far I'm not getting from the writing that there really IS "judicial activism" occuring. Seems to be more about how and what people sometimes SEE as "judicial activism."

Defining why it is and why it isn't.

The prominent and sustained use of the term by these diversefigures suggests that studying it may help in unpacking whatever consensus exists about what constitutes irresponsible behavior by courts.

Okay. Well I'm giving my opinion about what the term is really for which is fighting among ideological dogmas. My discussion is with you and not with the writer.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Yes, I know.

I found this and I think we can probably both learn from it. Very interesting writing.

We may have no disagreement at the end.

Or a bigger one :-) Who knows

I'm still waiting for you to give me a clear definition of judicial activism other than what I have suggested.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Judges who make law rather than interpret law are activist judges.

Legislators make the law; judges interpret the Constitution.