Why does the Constitution allow judges to play an activist role?
Assess the impact that judicial activism has had on American society, discussing specific cases in which the Supreme Court or a lower federal court played an activist role. Why does the Constitution allow judges to play an activist role?
In responding to your classmates, discuss if judicial activism is a good thing and when it goes too far. List specific cases in which you believe judicial activism worked for the good or detriment of society in your answer.
For your response posts (2), you must do the following:
- Reply to at least two different classmates outside of your own initial post thread.
- In Module One, complete the two response posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time.
- In Modules Two through Eight, complete the two response posts by Sunday at 11:59 p.m. of your local time zone.
- Demonstrate more depth and thought than simply stating that “I agree” or “You are wrong.” Guidance is provided for you in each discussion prompt.
classmates Post #1:
The way that I see judicial activism is that it’s the court’s rulings, and based on the judges own personal or political views. The existing laws don’t matter in this case because the judges get to decide what they want to do.
While I was doing some research one of the cases that came up was the Brown vs. Board of Education, this was the case where a group of parents filed a lawsuit for their children against the city of Topeka Kansas. They did this because they felt it was not right or constitutional with the segregation of black and white kids. When looking at the case, the courts didn’t look at the existing laws when it came to making their decision, rather they used their own personal and social ideas. I am grateful that this happened the way it did because if not I wouldn’t pf been able to go to school with some of my friends, this case stemmed from the Plessy v. Ferguson case. Another case that came up was the Roe v. Wade, in this case the courts were in favor of abortions being legal in many circumstances. The laws in Texas were that they were completely illegal unless if it was to save the life of the mother. The courts believed it violated the privacy of a woman, again this is them not following the law, but instead creating a new one.
Over time Judicial Activism has been used to solve more and more cases. I personally believe it has done more good than bad. I believe so because if you look at all of the cases in the end for the most part it has benefited the people. It has given us more opportunities to make our own choices. Yes our forefathers made certain laws, but over time things and people change, and we need to keep with these changes. To my understanding the courts are allowed to use Judicial Activism because a lot of times judges know what’s best for the public depending on certain circumstances, rather than following existing laws.
classmates Post #2: