Judicial activism

The phrase "judicial activism" in the United States, Australia, Canada and other countries with common law systems, is a term conceptually describing judges who exceed their authority to interpret the law by effectively creating a new one by means of the precedent created by their own personal conclusions. Broadly speaking, judicial activism is the act of replacing an impartial interpretation of existing law with the judge's personal feelings about what the law should be. Because there is no consensus or legal definition for what constitutes proper jurisprudence and what does not, there is no practical means of differentiating between judicial activism and otherwise appropriate judgement.

Related Topics:
United States - Australia - Canada - Common law - Judge - Jurisprudence

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Some liberal scholars such as Cass Sunstein and Paul Gewirtz have attempted to redefine judicial activism neutrally to apply simply to a decision of the judiciary to strike down legislative acts.

Related Topics:
Liberal - Cass Sunstein - Paul Gewirtz

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~