The MagazineA View from the BenchThe unpersuasive case for judicial activism.Dec 4, 2006, Vol. 12, No. 12
• By EDWARD WHELAN
The Myth of The term "judicial activism" carries a powerful stigma. Over the past four decades or so, the courts, especially the Supreme Court, have imposed the left's agenda on a broad range of issues--abortion, the death penalty, pornography, homosexuality, criminal rights, and a secularized public square, to name a few. Many critics of judicial decisions on these matters emphasize that the rulings are not merely erroneous, but operate to deprive Americans of their basic political right to establish, through their elected representatives, the policies that ought to govern the nation, their states, and their communities. The shorthand label "judicial activism" captures and conveys this unconstitutional judicial usurpation of the democratic process. Contending that "judicial activism is an empty epithet," Kermit Roosevelt III, professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania, has written a book earnestly arguing that judicial decisions ought, instead, to be assessed against his proposed benchmark of "legitimacy." Although The Myth of Judicial Activism is, for the most part, evenhanded, that virtue cannot compensate for its deep conceptual flaws. Roosevelt fails to provide what his title and subtitle promise: He neither exposes judicial activism as a "myth" nor provides a useful alternative means of "making sense of Supreme Court decisions." To read more, you must be a Weekly Standard Subscriber We're Sorry,
the rest of this article is available only to subscribers. You have two options: 1:
2:
If you are not yet a Subscriber to TWS, don't wait
any longer to Subscribe Now!
Subscribing today will provide you with immediate, complete access to the current issue, as well as to all back issues on the site. Each week you will be able to read articles from the newest issue even before print copies are mailed! Privacy Policy |
|