I need some help with the concept of judicial activism,specifically...?

Question

i'm trying to write a debate script against the motion 'judicial activism is justified'.First of all i'd like to know how the Bush vs.Gore case in 2002 classifies as judicial activism,secondly how does the judiciary infringe on the role of the legislature through activism.also if possible please help with examples to prove that judicial activism negatively impacts impartiality of the judiciary.

Answer 1

Judicial activism is a judicial interpretation that critics consider to take on suspected political reasoning, rather than an evaluation of the law. Thus, it is not justified because there is a deprivation of the real meaning of the issues instead of strictly applying the true meaning of the law.

Answer 2

As far as Judicial activism goes, the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court is a great example. They basically ruled that the rules of an ongoing election could be changed. In ordering the recount the court ruled in contrast to Florida State election laws. The US Supreme Court said, No, you can not change the rules of an election in the middle of an election. This had already been established law, and the Florida Supreme Court was going against the established law. Judicial Activism negatively impacts the legislature by nullifying existing law in favor of a ruling that goes contrary to the normal and traditional practices of law. For example when the US Supreme ruled that the government could take private property to enhance it's tax base effectively nullified the long standing tradition of a persons right to own property, and gave all property rights to the government. This is in violation of all previous court rulings. The case of Roe Vs Wade is a case of judicial activism, because the US Supreme court did not rule acording to existing law, but thier ruling created law. The Judiciary does not have the authority to create law, and by going against established law, the court made themselves and unelected legislature.