preview

The Pros And Cons Of Judicial Activism

Good Essays
The United States Constitution is one of the oldest documents in U.S. history created by our Founding Fathers to limit the power of the federal government and protect the natural born rights of citizens. These forward thinking individuals realized that sometimes people in positions of authority could potentially abuse their power hence the creation and framework of United States Constitution was established. The Founding Fathers intentions which were deemed fair and consistent would give people the protection they once feared could be taken away. Though these intentions were viewed in the eyes of fairness and consistency the Constitution could be interpreted multiple ways.
The Constitution could be viewed in two different ways, a strict or
…show more content…
However, judicial activism has some merit and shouldn 't be overlooked. Positive takeaways for judicial activism is that it allows judges to have a voice and take into consideration the facts they have been given that may be unfair and go against the presented case. Judicial activism gives judges the opportunity to fight against the injustices within a case that they personally think is wrong and direct their decision off of their personal beliefs (apecsec.org). Another pro for judicial activism is that it instills trust within our judges. When judges are sworn into office they given an oath that says they will bring forth justice within reasonable limitations. (apecsec.org). Identifying the positives of judicial activism one must recognize there are negatives as well. One would be when taking part in judicial activism there is a set law for judges to base their decision off the Constitution as written into law. However, judges may approach their decision making as if no…show more content…
This decision becomes an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later”) (law.cornell.edu). The Gideon & Betts cases factor into account that Gideon flat out overturned the prior Betts case and broke with precedent by saying all defendants have a right to counsel and could potentially be seen as violating stare decisis and being a case of judicial activism that strays from the courts designated role. However, the case of Gideon v Wainwright presented an issue defined in the Constitution whereas as the court had already ruled on and it didn 't violate the doctrine of political questions or ruling on political things meant to be settled by legislatures. As the supreme court reached its decision in Gideon by stating that right to counsel established in prior cases and applying the 6th and 14th amendment for federal cases which extends the Bill of Rights within states, this case (in state of Florida) appears to be squarely within the realm of the supreme court and they were correct in hearing his