Explain the concept of judicial activism and how this philosophy interprets the Constitution
Judicial activism is a concept that refers to the tendency of judges to interpret and apply the law in a way that reflects their personal and political beliefs. It is characterized by a more expansive reading of the Constitution, seeing it as an evolving document that should adapt to social and political changes in society.
Proponents of judicial activism argue that the Constitution is a living document and should be interpreted in light of current societal values and needs. They believe that the judiciary has a role in shaping public policy and driving social progress by taking a more proactive and interventionist approach.
Judicial activists often utilize creative or broad interpretation of constitutional language to address issues that may not have been explicitly addressed by the framers of the Constitution. They argue that this approach allows for a more flexible and adaptable legal system that can confront modern challenges.
Critics, however, argue that judicial activism goes beyond the intended role of the judiciary. They believe that judges should focus on the original intent or text of the Constitution and not make policy decisions. Critics argue that activism can lead to the infringement of the powers of the legislative and executive branches, as well as an erosion of the separation of powers.
In summary, judicial activism is a philosophy that promotes a more active and creative approach to interpreting the Constitution. It emphasizes the judiciary's role in shaping public policy and adapting the Constitution to meet the changing needs of society. However, it is a controversial concept, with some arguing that it oversteps judicial boundaries and diminishes the authority of the other branches of government.