Judicial Activism and The Defense of Civil Rights :: American Government, Courts, Public Policies

Since its first appearance in 1947 in sequel Magazine, the call Judicial Activism has promoted incandescent debates about the radiation diagram of courts in unexclusive indemnity, however to date there is non a consensus of what legal activism rightfully means. The term may denote a pejorative description of legal behavior or in other instances the sophisticated elaboration of judicial concepts. (Roosevelt III 20061)Since 1947 the term have been delectationd extensively in magazines, newspapers and virtue reviews, by 1990 was used in average 450 times a year, appeared in 3815 law review articles and several other publications (Kmiec, 2004). After the election of president Obama the term use of the term have been even more extensive, his deuce Supreme Court nominees have been labeled with the scarlet letter of activism by respected law gazettes like American Bar Association (ABA) diary and the Northwestern University Law Review. Yet the debate about the meaning of the ter m remains unclear.However the involvement of the courts in policy making is not a recent phenomenon as some media outlets aim to portrait. Since the first use of judicial review by the Supreme Court in Marbuty v Madison (1803) the Supreme Court have exercised judicial review to undermine 160 federal official status and more than a 1000 federal laws (Tarr 2009, p258). Some of the most these cases have important legal implication in the defense of fundamental rights such(prenominal) as freedom of speech, (United States vs Nixon 1973), due routine (Brown vs Board of Education 1954) and prisoners rights (James v Wallace 1974).Courts are also involved in the defense of civil rights contesting majority ruled decision. encounter (1997) illustrated this case clearly in her study of courts rule against referendum mandates affecting minority rights. Gamble stated that between 1959 and 1993 there were 74 ballot measures that clearly targeted minority rights most of these ballot initiatives deal with issues such as housing segregation, gay rights, school desegregation, English among others.From the 74 measures mentioned by Gambel, 53 (78 percent) generated a form of repression of exclusion against minority groups. Analyzing this results Gamble argued that the playscript showed that American voters readily repeal existing civil rights protections and enthusiastically ordain laws that bar their elected representatives from passing new ones. By repeatedly impinging down the latter, the judicial system has vigilantly protected the rights of minorities to participate in the political process (Gambel 1997262)Judges have been involved in policy making, not just protecting of civil rights, but in alter the gaps overlooked by the law.