Judicial activism

Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues. The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers. Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues. The question of judicial activism is closely related to constitutional interpretation, statutory construction, and separation of powers. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. introduced the term 'judicial activism' in a January 1947 Fortune magazine article titled 'The Supreme Court: 1947'. The phrase has been controversial since its beginning. An article by Craig Green, 'An Intellectual History of Judicial Activism,' is critical of Schlesinger's use of the term; 'Schlesinger's original introduction of judicial activism was doubly blurred: not only did he fail to explain what counts as activism, he also declined to say whether activism is good or bad.' Even before this phrase was first used, the general concept already existed. For example, Thomas Jefferson referred to the 'despotic behaviour' of Federalist federal judges, in particular Chief Justice John Marshall.