Should judges be allowed to override legislature (judicial activism)?

Answer 1

Yes. That's their role within the government, to act as the interpreters of the law and to strike from the books any law that is unconstitutional (ie. conflicts with the supreme law of the land). This is to prevent a legislative and executive branch controlled by a single party from arbitrarily passing laws that are illegal and to make sure they remain within the boundaries of their positions.

Without this judicial oversight, events such as the incarceration of Japanese-Americans during WW2 occurs. In this situation, the judicial branch merely defered to the executive and legislative branch and only much later have we determined that they failed in their duty.

Answer 2

In theory they can not. What happens is courts will sometimes interpret what a law means. oftentimes people will disagree with the court's interpretation and say it is legistlating.

The second thing that happens is a court may say that a particular law or the way in which it is used violates either the state or federal constitution. Often people don't like this and will again say the court is legislating.

The other time this can happen is when a court is acting as a "court of Equity". At one time there were courts of law and courts of equity. The courts of equity jumped in where there was unfairness and there was no remedy for the wronged person in the law. For example, the Supreme Court found that seperate but equal schools were unconstituional. They then fashioned an equitable remedy--which was bussing of students. A lot of people would consider this to be legislating. However, whether one agrees with the court or not on the remedy, it is a traditonal power of a court.

Sometimes in reality, from a common sense perspective, courts are making laws. It is just in theory this is not what is happening.

Answer 3

Be thankful for checks and balances on the Federal and State governments. A judge can be activist and throw out legislation and the legislature can pass a bill undoing the judge's changes.

Judges intepret the law - not write new law.

Answer 4

There's a big difference between overriding legislation and judicial activism. Juedges should override laws when it finds them unconsitutional. That is their job. But when they make rulings demanding certain legislation, they exceed their authority. That is what judicial activism is.

Answer 5

If a Law is repugnant to the Constitution, it is null and void and it is the duty of the Judiciary to strike it down.

That is the only acceptable circumstance by which the Judiciary may trump legislation.

Answer 6

Yes, it's called checks and balances. It ensures that no one section of the government becomes too powerful as long as they aren't all working together under one agenda.

Answer 7

THOSE ARE NOT JUDGES YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT THEY ARE BLACK ROBED TYRANTS LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH. JUDGES INTERPRET THE LAW, NOT MAKE IT UP AS THEY GO....THIS COUNTRY HAS GONE WACKY AND IT'S TIME FOR US THE GOOD PEOPLE TO TAKE IT BACK FOR OUR CHILDRENS SAKE. BUT WHERE DO WE START?