Is reversing bad case law judicial activism or just righting a wrong?

Answer 1

No its not. As Janice Rogers Brown has said, a mistake does not improve with repetition.

Its just good government to correct bad decisions where the Court has previously exceeded its authority. If we do not than there will come a day when the document no longer has any relevance because we have allowed liberals to twist the clear meaning out of shape to many times.

for example "Public Use" means just that. I don't care how many words the libs use to say Public Use can mean private use. No it can't.

Public Use means just that. End of story.

Answer 2

This depends on what you mean by "bad case law" and by "judicial activism".

If you mean reversing a decision of a lower court that was contrary to the law or other decisions, ....well, yes, that is righting a wrong. But it is the sort of "judicial activism" that we all approve of, when an appellate court, or a supreme court, overturns a bad decision by a biased judge, or jury, or prosecutor. Or a stupid law that never should have been passed. Or an action of a president that was just plain dictatorial.

What you are referring to is the reversal of what is called by the latin term "stare decisis"--following the rule of precendent . In that case, especially in the case of "judicially-created law", it is criticized as the courts acting as legislators, and usurping the role that ought to be the role of the legislative branch.

Neither courts nor legislators, nor executives, are infallible. And our sense of justice changes with time and circumstance, and thinking better of things than we did before.

There are many examples where the courts have overruled both congress and the president--and should have. And there are cases where the courts have stuck their noses into areas where they should have remained silent. It depends on how they ruled, and how you fell about it, that determines whether you think they have exceeded their authority.

Examples? Sure. There are probably hundreds. In the 18th century we didn't think twice about whipping or beating a convicted prisoner. We tried people for witchcraft. We upheld slavery. We thought "separate but equal" was. We thought liquor should be outlawed. We thought women shold not have the right to vote.

If the courts later overturned those laws, or congress changed them ....and prior court decisions....was that "judicial activism"....or righting a wrong?

Answer 3

I suppose it's both, depending on your point of view. I'd characterize it as "righting a wrong." Brown v. Board of Education reversed the "separate but equal doctrine that simply did not work. If you are a strict conservative, you might call it judicial activism, but courts do need to be able to correct errors as our culture changes or we discover prior decisions no longer work.

Answer 4

It is wrong whether it is a liberal or conservative judge because it is in direct conflict with the rules of the government under which we live.
The Founding Fathers had a great idea...one that did not include renegade judges imposing their views on citizens without the oversight of Congress - the peoples elected representitives.