Judicial activism, or the perception of judicial activism, increases when the balance of the court favors justices with extreme viewpoints (either progressive or conservative) who have a political agenda, or who believe they need to correct constitutional interpretations and decisions of an earlier Court in order to influence social policy.
Please note that judicial activism is a subjective term, usually applied pejoratively by an individual or group whose beliefs differ from that of the Court's majority (conservatives rarely refer to conservative decisions as activism; progressives rarely refer to progressive decisions as activism).
The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution extended all of the protections in the Bill of Rights, voting rights, etc., to every citizen of the United States. Prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment, individual states could make their own laws restricting citizenship, permitting voting rights limitations, limiting free speech and assembly, etc.
Over the last 140 years, the courts have increasingly used the provisions of the 14th amendment to extend the ability of the federal government to ensure people's rights.
Judicial Activism
Judicial activism weakens the separation of powers by involving the Court in what are traditionally executive and legislative functions. Judicial restraint reinforces separation of powers.
The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial activism versus. Versus strict constructionism, and living document versus original intent.
To hell with Pakistan and you...
judicial activism!
judicial restraintFor more information, see Related Questions, below.
The types of judicial philosophy include judicial activism, judicial restraint, loose constructionism and strict constructionism.
for its period of Judicial Activism
A person who favors judicial activism is one who prefers a decision to be made via a personal opinion, rather than focusing on the law. A person who does this is considered unlawful or a federalist.
Judicial activism was used because the Court ruled that the school policy prohibiting the students from wearing the arm bands to protest symbolically the Vietnam War violated the students' free speech rights. By overturning a policy of the government (the public school's policy), the Court exercised judicial activism.
Judicial restraint is the theory that judges should limit their exercise of power and strike down laws only when they are obviously unconstitutional, and always follow precedents set by older courts. Judicial activism is the opposite view, and is sometimes meant to imply politically motivated judicial decisions.
The Warren Court, which was active from 1953 until Chief Justice Earl Warren retired in 1969, is often accused of judicial activism for its many decisions supporting African-Americans' civil rights. Whether they believed they were judicial activists or not is unknown.