This article or section includes a list of references or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks in-text citations. You can improve this article by introducing more precise citations.

The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by weasel words, which can allow the implication of unsourced information. You can help Wikipedia by removing weasel worded statements.This section has been tagged since November 2007.

This article or section may present a limited or distorted point of view by covering certain aspects to the exclusion of others. Please improve this article or discuss the issue on the talk page.

Judicial activism is a term used in the United States that is open to some controversy concerning its true meaning. Its meaning before the 1990's was taken to be a pejorative term for misuse of judicial power for the purpose of obtaining a predetermined judgement based on the political convictions of the judges without regard to the U.S. constitution, written law or legal precedent. After the year 2000 it was adopted by members of the opposition party to mean the appointment of judges for the purpose of political expediency. Image File history File links This is a lossless scalable vector image. ...

Definition

Dictionary definitions

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law defines judicial activism as "the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent."[2]

Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as "a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions, usu. with the suggestion that adherents of this philosophy tend to find constitutional violations and are willing to ignore precedent." Blacks Law Dictionary, 7th edition Blacks Law Dictionary is the definitive law dictionary for the law of the United States. ...

David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School has argued that judicial activism can be narrowly defined as one or more of three possible things:[3]

• overturning laws as unconstitutional
• overturning judicial precedent
• ruling against a preferred interpretation of the constitution

Critics of Strauss' view have argued that these definitions include only legal interpretation. They argue that a judge may be termed "activist" based on the remedy chosen, even if the legal interpretation is not "activist".^{[citation needed]} Case law (also known as decisional law) is that body of reported judicial opinions in countries that have common law legal systems that are published and thereby become precedent, i. ...

In practice, a speaker may use the term "activist judge" to mean that a judge has simply made an important decision that the accusing speaker disagrees with. When used in this way, the term "activist judge" is little more than a term of political criticism. While there are many who are willing to use this hot button term as a simple protest of disagreement, this is not the most common usage, nor the most common understanding, of the term. As a general usage, "activist judge" is used to describe a judge who actively and knowingly subverts, misuses, grossly misinterprets, ignores, or otherwise flouts the law and or legal precedence due to personal opinion, be that opinion ideological, religious, philosophical, or other.

Debate

Detractors of judicial activism charge that it usurps power of the legislature, thereby diminishing the rule of law and democracy.^{[citation needed]} They argue that an unelected judicial branch has no legitimate grounds to overrule policy choices of duly elected representatives, absent a real conflict with the constitution.^{[citation needed]} A Legislature is a type of representative deliberative assembly with the power to create, amend and ratify laws. ...

Defenders of judicial prerogatives say that many cases of "judicial activism" merely exemplify judicial review, and that courts must uphold the constitution and strike down any statute that violates the constitution.^{[citation needed]} They say that it is the duty of courts to protect minority rights and to uphold the law, notwithstanding the political sentiments of the day, and that constitutional democracy is far more than just majority rule.^{[citation needed]} However, detractors of judicial activism retort that neither democracy nor the rule of law can exist when the law is merely what judges say it should be.^{[citation needed]} They argue that the discretion of judges must be limited (e.g. by the intentions of lawmakers), or else any group of people engaged in any behavior could become a judicially protected minority, and any law could be subverted by the predilections of unelected judges.^{[citation needed]} Judicial review is the power of a court to review the actions of public sector bodies in terms of their legality or constitutionality. ...

Some proponents of a stronger judiciary argue that the judiciary should grant itself an expanded role to counterbalance the effects of majoritarianism, i.e. there should be an increase in the powers of a branch of government which is not directly subject to the electorate, so that the majority cannot dominate any particular minority through its elective powers.^{[citation needed]} Majoritarianism is a political philosophy or agenda which asserts that a majority (sometimes categorized by religion, language or some other identifying factor) of the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society. ...

For information about judicial activism in Canada, please see Judicial activism (Canada). Judicial Activism is said to be the overreaching or incorrect interpretation of the law, which are thought by critics to be a misuse of the power of interpretation of the law by a judge or judges for political or personal reasons. ...

Origins

Arthur Schlesinger Jr. introduced the term "judicial activism" to the public in a Fortune magazine article in January 1947.^[1] Keenan Kmiec discusses Schlesinger's article "The Supreme Court: 1947" from Fortune, January 1947. According to Kmiec, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. ...

Hugo Black Hugo LaFayette Black (February 27, 1886 – September 25, 1971) was a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (1937 - 1971). ... William Orville Douglas (October 16, 1898 – January 19, 1980) was a United States Supreme Court Associate Justice. ... For the Australian rules footballer, see Frank Murphy (footballer). ... Wiley Blount Rutledge (July 20, 1894 - September 10, 1949) was a U.S. educator and jurist. ... Felix Frankfurter (November 15, 1882 – February 22, 1965) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. ... Robert Houghwout Jackson (February 13, 1892–October 9, 1954) was United States Attorney General (1940–1941) and an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court (1941–1954). ... Harold Hitz Burton (June 22, 1888 - October 28, 1964) was an American Senator and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. ... Stanley Forman Reed ( December 31, 1884 – April 2, 1980) was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 1938 to 1957. ... Frederick Moore Vinson (January 22, 1890 – September 8, 1953) served the United States in all three branches of government. ...

Methods

The methods by which judges engage in judicial activism, according to those who make this accusation, include the following:^{[citation needed]}

• Overturning legislation passed by an elected legislature, using an interpretation of the constitution that critics of the ruling believe is not clearly mandated or implied by the constitutional text;
• Ruling against the text or intent of a statute, using what critics of the ruling argue is an incorrect or overreaching interpretation;
• Ruling against judicial precedent in a way that critics of the ruling hold is a radical or unjustified departure from accepted interpretation;
• Holding legislation unconstitutional based on what critics of the ruling view as a clearly flawed precedent;
• Selectively using obscure case law or foreign law, in preference to what is seen by critics of the ruling as more pertinent case law or statutory law; and
• Use by state courts of a single subject rule to nullify legislation or state constitutional amendments, in what critics of the ruling say is a questionable manner.

Legislation (or statutory law) is law which has been promulgated (or enacted) by a legislature or other governing body. ... Intentionalism redirects here. ... Stare decisis (Latin: , Anglicisation: , to stand by things decided) is a Latin legal term, used in common law systems to express the notion that prior court decisions must be recognized as precedents, according to case law. ... Single subject rule is a general term for a section present in many state constitutions within the United States of America. ...

Accusations of judicial activism

The Living Constitution as judicial activism

Critics^[who?] of the living constitution approach to judicial philosophy argue it is necessarily activist. Their argument is that the living constitution philosophy endorses any ruling, so long as the judge can argue that his/her ruling helps the constitution to grow and evolve. Critics^[who?] say that this can violate a judge's sworn allegiance to uphold the constitution, because, in effect, it encourages judges to write their own constitutions. Furthermore, they argue that the living constitution leads to unpredictable rulings, making it impossible to obey the law. One possible outcome of this confusion is the threat of frivolous lawsuits. [4] The United States Supreme Court. ... In courts, a defense or claim is termed frivolous if it is presented in spite of the fact that both the party and the partys attorney knew that it had no merit and it did not argue for a reasonable extension or reinterpretation of the law or no underlying...

Critics^[who?] of the living constitution also argue that it violates the principle of separation of powers. They say that because the purpose of the judiciary is to interpret existing laws and policies, any action that is not done strictly in accordance with existing law must be activism. Indeed, they continue, the legislative branch is explicitly empowered by the constitution to make law, and the constitution deliberately has an amendment process. Consequently, any change to the laws or the constitution outside this framework is itself illegal.^{[citation needed]} The Politics series Politics Portal This box:      Separation of powers is a term coined by French political Enlightenment thinker Baron de Montesquieu[1][2], is a model for the governance of democratic states. ...

Usually these critics are originalists. Originalists^[who?] reject the idea that contemporary standards should determine the meaning of the constitution, and consequently reject the idea that the meaning of the constitution can change (outside of a constitutional amendment). For this reason, they^[who?] believe that the living constitution is inherently activist. Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, by Howard Chandler Christy. ...

Originalism as judicial activism

Some critics of originalism have charged that a coalition of conservatives and libertarians seek to overturn New Deal-era Supreme Court rulings whose expansive interpretations of constitutional Congressional power allowed the emergence of the modern regulatory and welfare state.^{[citation needed]} Conservatives, in response, argue that these charges are overblown.[5] Scene at the Signing of the Constitution of the United States, by Howard Chandler Christy. ... This article is about the policy program of US President Franklin D Roosevelt. ...

Quotes on judicial activism

Statements by Judges

All of the current justices of the United States Supreme Court have seemingly disavowed judicial activism at certain points. Chief Justice John Roberts' disavowal of judicial activism is well-known from his confirmation hearing ("Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”). Roberts has stated that his view of judicial activism stems from that of Justices Felix Frankfurter and John Marshall Harlan II. Roberts put it this way: The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C., (large image) The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the highest court (see supreme court) in the United States; that is, it has ultimate judicial authority within the United States... This article is about the Chief Justice of the United States. ... Felix Frankfurter (November 15, 1882 – February 22, 1965) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. ... John Marshall Harlan II (May 20, 1899 – December 29, 1971) was an American jurist. ...

"[C]ourts should not intrude into areas of policy making reserved by the Constitution to the political branches ... To the extent the term judicial activism is used to describe unjustified intrusions by the judiciary into the realm of policy making, the criticism is well-founded.

"At the same time, the Framers insulated the federal judiciary from popular pressure in order that the courts would be able to discharge their responsibility of interpreting the law and enforcing the limits the Constitution places on the political branches. Thoughtful critics of 'judicial activism' — such as Justices Holmes, Frankfurter, Jackson, and Harlan — always recognized that judicial vigilance in upholding constitutional rights was in no sense improper 'activism.' It is not 'judicial activism' when the courts carry out their constitutionally-assigned function and overturn a decision of the Executive or Legislature in the course of adjudicating a case or controversy properly before the courts. ...

"[J]udges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited. They do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law. When the other branches of government exceed their constitutionally mandated limits, the courts can act to confine them to the proper bounds. It is judicial self-restraint, however, that confines judges to their proper constitutional responsibilities."[6]

Justice John Paul Stevens referred in 1983's Michigan v. Long to "my belief that a policy of judicial restraint — one that allows other decisional bodies to have the last word in legal interpretation until it is truly necessary for this Court to intervene — enables this Court to make its most effective contribution to our federal system of government." Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. ... John Marshall Harlan II (May 20, 1899 – December 29, 1971) was an American jurist. ... John Paul Stevens (born April 20, 1920) is currently the most senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. ... Michigan v. ...

Justice David Souter wrote in his opinion in 1997's Washington v. Glucksberg, "We therefore have a clear question about which institution, a legislature or a court, is relatively more competent to deal with an emerging issue as to which facts currently unknown could be dispositive. The answer has to be, for the reasons already stated, that the legislative process is to be preferred ... The experimentation that should be out of the question in constitutional adjudication displacing legislative judgments is entirely proper, as well as highly desirable, when the legislative power addresses an emerging issue like assisted suicide." David Hackett Souter (born September 17, 1939) has been an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States since 1990. ... Question Presented Did Washingtons Natural Death Act of 1979, banning assisted-suicide, violate the 14th Amendments Due Process Clause by denying the liberty to choose death over life? Court membership Case opinions Washington v. ... Euthanasia (Greek, good death) is the practice of killing a person or animal, in a painless or minimally painful way, for merciful reasons, usually to end their suffering. ...

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has written, "Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication. Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable," in the context of arguing that the Court in Roe v. Wade displaced too much existing state abortion law too quickly. Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg (born March 15, 1933, Brooklyn, New York) is an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. ... Holding Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. ...

Justice Stephen Breyer has averred a belief in judicial deference to democratic decision-making, for example in his book, Active Liberty: Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution. Thus, Breyer is often reluctant to join strong interpretations of the First or Fourteenth Amendments striking down laws if the laws at issue reflect considered democratic decision-making. Stephen Gerald Breyer (born August 15, 1938) is an American attorney, political figure, and jurist. ... Active Liberty (subtitled Interpreting Our Democratic Constitution) is a 2005 book by United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. ...

The late Justice Harry Blackmun explicitly disavowed judicial activism in his dissent in 1972's Furman v. Georgia, which overturned existing state capital punishment statutes. Blackmun, while arguing that "I yield to no one in the depth of my distaste, antipathy, and, indeed, abhorrence, for the death penalty", wrote, "Although personally I may rejoice at the Court's result, I find it difficult to accept or to justify as a matter of history, of law, or of constitutional pronouncement." Later in his career, however, Blackmun consistently voted to hold capital punishment regimes unconstitutional. Justice Harry Blackmun Harry Andrew Blackmun (November 12, 1908 – March 4, 1999) was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1970 to 1994. ... Holding The arbitrary and inconsistent imposition of the death penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. ... Death penalty, death sentence, and execution redirect here. ...

Eleventh Circuit Judge William H. Pryor, Jr. discussed judicial activism in a Wall Street Journal piece on October 8, 2006.[7] William H. Pryor, Jr. ... The Wall Street Journal is an influential international daily newspaper published in New York City, New York with an average daily circulation of 1,800,607 (2002). ... is the 281st day of the year (282nd in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2006 (MMVI) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ...

In Australia, Justice Dyson Heydon, while a judge of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, gave a speech that was later widely published as 'Judicial Activism and Death of the Rule of Law', at a time when the government was attempting to find a replacement for a retiring judge of the High Court of Australia. His speech was widely seen as an application for the job, and it turned out to be successful. Justice John Dyson Heydon (1943- ) is a Justice of the High Court of Australia; the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy. ... NSW redirects here. ... High Court entrance The High Court of Australia is the final court of appeal in Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy. ...

Ronald Reagan criticised "judicial activism": Reagan redirects here. ...

"I intend to go right on appointing highly qualified individuals of the highest personal integrity to the bench, individuals who understand the danger of short-circuiting the electoral process and disenfranchising the people through judicial activism." Remarks During a White House Briefing for United States Attorneys (October 21, 1985)

Judicial activism and individual cases

Various cases and judicial shifts throughout the Supreme Court's history have prompted accusations of judicial activism or overreaching, such as the following:

• Marbury v. Madison
• Chisholm v. Georgia
• Dred Scott v. Sandford
• Hans v. Louisiana
• Lochner v. New York
• Brown v. Board of Education
• Mapp v. Ohio
• Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas
• United States v. Lopez and the Rehnquist Court's federalism decisions;
• Bush v. Gore
• Kelo v. City of New London
• Roper v. Simmons
• Both of the Supreme Court's reactions to the New Deal, both before and after the "switch in time" in 1937
• Various decisions of the Marshall Court, most famously Marbury v. Madison
• Various decisions of the Warren Court
• Goodridge v. Department of Public Health

Holding Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. ... Holding Article III, Section 2s grant of federal jurisdiction over suits between a State and Citizens of another State abrogated the States sovereign immunity recognized at common law, thus allowing a private individual to hale a State into federal court. ... Holding States do not have the right to claim an individuals property that was fairly theirs in another state. ... Holding --- Court membership Case opinions Laws applied --- Hans v. ... Holding New Yorks regulation of the working hours of bakers was not a justifiable restriction of the right to contract freely under the 14th Amendments guarantee of liberty. ... Holding Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal. ... Template:SCOTUSCase dad u ruleMapp v. ... Holding Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. ... Holding A Texas law prohibiting homosexual sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to engage in private intimate conduct. ... Holding Possession of a gun near a school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. ... William Hubbs Rehnquist (October 1, 1924 – September 3, 2005) was an American lawyer, jurist, and a political figure, who served as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States and later as the Chief Justice of the United States. ... For theological federalism, see Covenant Theology. ... Holding In the circumstances of this case, any manual recount of votes seeking to meet the December 12 “safe harbor” deadline would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... Holding The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible public use under the Fifth Amendment. ... Holding The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. ... This article is about the policy program of US President Franklin D Roosevelt. ... The switch in time that saved nine was the name given by the press to the apparent sudden shift by Justice Owen J. Roberts from the conservative wing of the Supreme Court (represented by the Four Horsemen) to the liberal wing (represented by Three Musketeers) in the case West Coast... Year 1937 (MCMXXXVII) was a common year starting on Friday (link will display the full calendar) of the Gregorian calendar. ... Holding Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. ... Earl Warren Earl Warren (March 19, 1891 – July 9, 1974) was a California district attorney and 30th Governor of California, but is best known as the 14th Chief Justice of the United States from 1953-1969. ... Holding The denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples violated provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and equality, and was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. ...

See also

• United States Supreme Court
• Judicial activism (Canada)
• Judicial restraint

The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C., (large image) The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the highest court (see supreme court) in the United States; that is, it has ultimate judicial authority within the United States... Judicial Activism is said to be the overreaching or incorrect interpretation of the law, which are thought by critics to be a misuse of the power of interpretation of the law by a judge or judges for political or personal reasons. ... The neutrality of this article is disputed. ...

Sources

• Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law (1996), Merriam-Webster. ISBN 0-87779-604-1
• Bryan A. Garner (1999). Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition. West Group. ISBN 0-314-15199-0. 

Books

Legal books

• Paul O. Carrese, 2003. The Cloaking of Power: Montesquieu, Blackstone, and the Rise of Judicial Activism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
• Duncan Kennedy, 1998. A Critique of Adjudication (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
• Carrol D. Kilgore, 1977. Judicial Tyranny: An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Federal Judiciary (Thomas Nelson). ISBN 978-0840740601
• 105th Cong., I @ Sess. I, 1997. Judicial Activism: Defining the Problem and its Impact: Testimony before the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism & Property Rights (U.S. G.P.O., Supt. of Docs., Congressional Sales Office Publishers), 205pp. ISBN 0-16-055917-0
• Sterling Harwood, 1996. Judicial Activism: A Restrained Defense (London: Austin & Winfield Publishers), 167pp. ISBN 1-880921-68-5.
• Christopher Wolfe, 1997. Judicial Activism, 2nd ed. (Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littfield Publishers, Inc.).
• Kenneth M. Holland, editor, 1991. Judicial Activism in Comparative Perspective (Palgrave Macmillan).
• Ronald Dworkin, 1988. Law's Empire (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
• Alexander M. Bickel, 1986. The Least Dangerous Branch 2nd ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press).
• Arthur Selwyn Miller, 1982. Toward Increased Judicial Activism (Greenwood Press).
• Ronald Dworkin, 1977. Taking Rights Seriously (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
• Lino A. Graglia, 1976. Disaster by Decree (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press).
• Michael Rebell and Arthur R. Block, 1982. Educational Policy Making and the Courts: An Empirical Study of Judicial Activism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
• H.L.A. Hart, 1961. The Concept of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Dr. Paul O. Carrese (kuh-REES) is a professor of political science at the United States Air Force Academy, and author of the book The Cloaking of Power: Montesquieu, Blackstone, and the Rise of Judicial Activism (University of Chicago Press). ... Duncan Kennedy (*1942 in Washington, D.C.) is the Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence at Harvard Law School. ... Members of the 105th United States Congress: // States Alabama Senators Richard C. Shelby (R) Jefferson B. Sessions III (R) Representatives 1. ... The logotype of the United States Government Printing Office In the United States, the Government Printing Office (GPO) prints and provides access to documents produced by and for all three branches of the federal government, including the Supreme Court, the Congress, and all executive branch agencies like the FCC and... Ronald Dworkin (born 1931) is an American legal philosopher, and currently professor of Jurisprudence at University College London and the New York University School of Law. ... Alexander Mordecai Bickel (December 17, 1924 – November 8, 1974) was a law professor and expert on the United States Constitution. ... Ronald Dworkin (born 1931) is an American legal philosopher, and currently professor of Jurisprudence at University College London and the New York University School of Law. ... Lino Graglia is the Dalton Cross Professor of Law at the University of Texas specializing in antitrust litigation. ... Michael A. Rebell is the Executive Director of the for Educational Equity at Teachers College, Columbia University. ... H. L. A. Hart (Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart) (1907-1992) is considered one of the most important legal philosophers of the twentieth century. ...

Popular books

• Kermit Roosevelt, October 15, 2006. The Myth of Judicial Activism: Making Sense of Supreme Court Decisions (Yale University Press Publishers), 272pp. ISBN 0-300-11468-0
• James B. Kelly, July 30, 2006. Governing With the Charter: Legislative And Judicial Activism And Framer's Intent (Law and Society Series) (UBC Press Publishers), 336pp. ISBN 0-7748-1212-5
• Rory Leishman, May 2006. Against Judicial Activism: The Decline of Freedom And Democracy in Canada (McGill-Queen's University Press Publishers), 310pp. ISBN 0-7735-3054-1
• Mark Sutherland, 2005. *Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America? ISBN 0-9753455-6-7
• Mark R. Levin, 2005. Men In Black: How the Supreme Court Is Destroying America ISBN 0-89526-050-6
• S.Hrg. 108–717, 2004. Judicial Activism vs. Democracy: What are the National Implications of the Massachusetts Goodridge Decision and the Judicial Invalidation of Traditional Marriage Laws? (U.S. G.P.O., Supt. of Docs., Congressional Sales Office Publishers), 263pp. Serial No. J-108-59. GPO Stock No. 552-070-32572-7, ISBN 0-16-074535-7
• Phyllis Schlafly, 2004. The Supremacists: The Tyranny Of Judges And How To Stop It ISBN 1-890626-55-4
• S. P. Sathe, December 2003. Judicial Activism in India (Oxford University Press Publishers), 406pp. ISBN 0-19-566823-5
• David Barton, 2003. 'Restraining Judicial Activism (Wallbuilder Press).
• Robert Bork, 2003. Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule of Judges (AEI Press) ISBN 0844741620
• Stephen P. Powers and Stanley Rothman, 2002. The Least Dangerous Branch? Consequences of Judicial Activism (Praeger Paperbacks).
• Herman Schwartz, editor, 2002. The Rehnquist Court: Judicial Activism on the Right ISBN 0-8090-8073-7.
• David Gwynn Morgan, 2001. A Judgment Too Far? Judicial Activism and the Constitution (Cork University Press).
• Bradley C. Canon and Charles A. Johnson, 1998. Judicial Policies: Implementation and Impact 2nd ed. (Congressional Quarterly Books).
• William P. Murchison, 1982. Judicial Politics Gone Wild: A Case Study of Judicial Activism in Texas (Washington Legal Foundation), 11pp

Kermit Kim Roosevelt III (born July 14, 1971 in Washington, D.C.) is a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School and a novelist, the author of the D.C. legal thriller In the Shadow of the Law (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2005). ... is the 288th day of the year (289th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2006 (MMVI) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ... Yale University Press is a book publisher founded in 1908. ... is the 211th day of the year (212th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ... Year 2006 (MMVI) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ... The University of British Columbia Press is a university press that is part of the University of British Columbia. ... The McGill-Queens University Press is a joint venture between McGill University in Montreal, Quebec and Queens University in Kingston, Ontario, two of the oldest and most prestigious universities in Canada. ... United States Capitol (2002) // The One Hundred Eighth United States Congress was a meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government, comprised of the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives. ... The logotype of the United States Government Printing Office In the United States, the Government Printing Office (GPO) prints and provides access to documents produced by and for all three branches of the federal government, including the Supreme Court, the Congress, and all executive branch agencies like the FCC and... Phyllis Schlafly (born August 15, 1924, in St. ... Oxford University Press (OUP) is a highly-respected publishing house and a department of the University of Oxford in England. ... David Barton is an author and an American historian who analyzes the Church-State relationship in the United States of America. ... Robert Heron Bork (born March 1, 1927) is a conservative American legal scholar who advocates the judicial philosophy of originalism. ... William Murchison is a nationally syndicated political columnist in the United States with The Dallas Morning News. ...

External links

• Ronald Dworkin, The Jurisprudence of Richard Nixon, 1972.
• Matthew J. Franck, Depends What the Meaning of "Judicial Activism" Is, 2006.
• Jonah Goldberg, Justice Kennedy's Mind: Where the Constitution resides, 2005.
• Keenan Kmiec, The origin and current meanings of "judicial activism", California Law Review, 2004.
• Charles Krauthammer, The Constitution is whatever Sandra Day O'Connor says it is, 2003.
• Larry Solum, "Jargon" (blog entry), 2004.
• Joseph Tussman, Judicial Activism and the Rule of Law - Toward a Theory of Selective Intervention, 1991
• Thomas Sowell, Judicial activism reconsidered, 1989.
• Edward Whelan, A View from the Bench: The unpersuasive case for judicial activism, Weekly Standard 2006-12-04.
• "¡Viva el Activismo Judicial!", by Clint Bolick, Gertrude Ryan Law Observatory, 2007 (Spanish)
• CourtZero.org (blog)
• Judicial Activism in America: Information Resources and Proposed Solutions
• Defining Judicial Activism in the Context of the Culture Wars
• Who are the bench's judicial activists? Looking at the Supreme Court justices' voting records, the lines between activism and restraint may surprise you

Ronald Dworkin (born 1931) is an American legal philosopher, and currently professor of Jurisprudence at University College London and the New York University School of Law. ... Jonah Jacob Goldberg (born March 21, 1969), is an American political commentator and writer. ... Charles Krauthammer (born March 13, 1950 in New York City[1][2]), is a Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist and commentator. ... Thomas Sowell (born June 30, 1930), is an American economist, political writer, and commentator. ... Edward Whelan (1824-December 10, 1867). ... Year 2006 (MMVI) was a common year starting on Sunday of the Gregorian calendar. ... is the 338th day of the year (339th in leap years) in the Gregorian calendar. ...

References