The judicial activism is defined as a philosophy of judicial decision making where by judges allow their personal views about public policy, guiding their decisions among other factors . Judicial activism can be observed in three possible actions: overturning a law as unconstitutional, overturning judicial precedent, and ruling against a preferred interpretation of the constitution. The use of judicial activism as a term usually implies that the person does not like the ruling as for example in the dissent of same sex marriage.
The use of judicial activism takes away the powers of the other branches of government. For example in the revocation of the laws that are passed by Congress. Since Congress is an elected body and Congress is tasked with the ability to make the laws, it is a usurpation of their power to have men and women who are not elected by the people and the people cannot have them removed or checked, to be able to undo the laws of an elected body. The usual way to remove a Justice is by death as they serve for life and are appointed by the President.
The strong judicial branch has the power to provide for the checks and balances of a legislative and executive branch that could be working together as they are both elected bodies of government. Since elections and political races can cause some candidates to bend toward favoring special interests groups the juridical component is free of these commitments. Therefore, the tendency to favor political contributors is removed from the judges’ consideration and they are free from constraint to revoke any legislation or executive action that could be construed in the interested of a particular lobbying group or special interest.
In comparing this to the problem with the media decisions and the “press” the judges are not affected regarding what the press says about them. An elected official does not have that luxury as much of their chances of getting elected are based on public opinion. It is strange that the Washington Post ran a story about sex-obsessed bureaucrats’ porn surfing on government equipment and allowing cybercriminals access to sensitive data sites . In cases such as this it makes more sense to have the judicial body having increased powers rather than less. In cases of pornography and other freedom of choice situations, the judges cannot restrain the rights of people to make their choices. Democratic principles require that the rights of freedom of the individuals are protected at all costs including desires that may be considered offensive. In not having to respond to the electorate for additional validation, judges can render unpopular opinion can be considered on their own merits.
Conclusion
Based on the idea that the judicial system can negate the laws of the Congress and the actions and orders of the Executive branch, in my opinion the three branches are not equal. In the case of Texas vs. White Congress and the Courts came to blows and the judicial powers won out . Granted that this case was during the Reconstruction Era in the United States history but it represents a time when there was little difference in the Congress, Executive branch and the Judges. This proved to be one of the last times that this was part of the branches not functioning as separate but equal branches.
In order to prevent a runaway Judiciary the appointment of the President are extremely important. Included in this should be some provision though for retirement or removal for age related illnesses. The judges are older now as the general population is living longer and therefore the terms are longer. It is proper for the legislative and the executive branches to take part in the selection of the judges .
References
Goldstone, L. (2011). Inherently Unequal: The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court . Bloomsburg: [online] https://books.google.com/books?id=r3CTEefvbQUC&pg=PA59&lpg=PA59&dq=three+branches+of+government+unequal+scholarly&source=bl&ots=Q90d274vJW&sig=phhY244gCzj7m_HYQApVlc7IJqg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-9ffygvPKAhVFej4KHS4QBV8Q6AEIODAE#v=onepage&q=three.
McElhatton, J. (2014, April). Sex-obsessed bureaucrats threaten nation's security with porn surfing habits. Washington Times, pp. [online] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/11/feds-online-porn-surfing-opens-government-computer/?page=all. Accessed February 2016.
O'Scannlain, D. (2002). Takings Clause Jurisprudence Muddle, Perhaps Judicial Activism. Geo. JL & Public Policy, pp. [online] http://documents.mx/documents/judicial-activism-55844e4c0f06d.html. Accessed Februaary 2012.
Shetreet, S. (2011). The Culture of Judicial Independence. [online] https://books.google.com/books?id=-VEyAQAAQBAJ&dq=proper+judicial+appointments&source=gbs_navlinks_s. Accessed February 2016.
