Critics of activist courts suggest that the courts have adopted a legislative role and enforce broad social p

Question

Critics of activist courts suggest that the courts have adopted a legislative role and enforce broad social policies. Does our system of justice put too much power in the hands of unelected officials?

Answer 1

unelected officials who have jobs for LIFE! this is a situation that needs to be corrected. they are more like "kings" than judges.

Answer 2

Judges are still accountable for their decisions. We put just as much power in the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Director of the IRS. Those individuals are not elected either. They are appointed by people we elect, and confirmed by people we elect.

So, while we many not elect them directly, we also don't elect the President directly. That doesn't mean we don't have any say in the matter.

But terminology aside, look at the broader picture. The role of the courts is essentially to save us from ourselves. They make determinations (generally, and ideally) based on what they think is the most just and rational decision. Their constituents are the entire country, and the constitution itself. And like anyone else, they slip and fall and err along the way. But most do what they think is best, in the interests of justice.

Don't forget that every decision made by justices can be overruled. Any interpretation of federal or state laws can be bypassed simply by changing those laws. Just as any constitutional interpretation can be overturned by amending the constitution.

The problem is that elected officials cater to the emotional moods of the country, and they propose laws based not on what is rational but based on what people are shouting for at the moment. Personally, I am comforted knowing that there are people making decisions based on the big picture, without being driven by what the mob currently is clamoring for.

Answer 3

The limitation of the judicial branch is that it can only say whether a law is constitutional or not. This means that they can say Seperate but Equal laws are unconstitutional and cannot be enacted if a case related to this is brought before them. But they can't say "These provisions of the Patriot Act" are unconstitutional if the case isn't brought before them. This also means that in a ruling a judge can't strike a related law unless some of its provisions are directly related to the case in front of them. Any ruling that oversteps this can be, and has been, overturned for overstepping its bounds.

Congress also has the power to restrict jurisdiction (within a very broad limit) of the courts. Thus, Congress can say "You can't hear any cases related to the religious ideologies of law enforcement officers" and then the courts couldn't hear suits related to putting the 10 Commandments in front of Courthouses, etc. (this has been attempted but never passed, fortunately).

The Judicial Branch is a very important part of the checks and balances, as long as the judges remain impartial, which Bush and Co. are very against.

Answer 4

The courts were seperated from making legislative decisions by design so that they would not engage in making policy decisions, instead of interpreting them. Most of todays activist courts seem bent on legislating instead of interpreting. Personally, I think they should be removed if they can't or won't do the job the way it was meant to be done. They have assumed the role of power not given to them by the constitution.

Answer 5

Depends on what court you are talking about. A lot of judges are elected, but then you get into the system of having flawed judges because they are backed by special interested... IE: Trial Lawyers (like here in Illinois).

Judges do legislate from the bench, it's sad but true.