Talk:Judicial activism

(At least) four different meanings to the term "Judicial activism"

1. The willingness of the judiciary to overturn acts of a legislator or previous judicial decisions that are unconstitutional. (opposite of judicial restraint)
2. The various forms of judicial interpretation that go beyond the text or meaning of the law (originalism) and consider things such as what the judge believes the intent of the law was; or to balance the law against other considerations such as governmental interests or popular opinion.
3. The willingness of justices to make broad decisions that cover fundamental principles, rather than narrowly construed decisions that limit the effects of precedent only to those necessary to settle the case before them.
4. The introduction of personal, emotional or political bias into decisions.

The current revision of the article's lede only discusses the last meaning of the term. The body of the article touches on some of the other meanings, but doesn't elaborate. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I tend to agree that a better-rounded definition is in order. For example, judicial activism can refer to a willingness to overturn precedent even when that precedent was uncontroversially incorrect. However, I don't think that we should include #2, because originalism is not the consensus baseline of responsible jurisprudence. Lukacris (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

---

References

I'm amazed there's no mention of Lord Denning in this article. There ought to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.17.106 (talk) 03:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Judicial activism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iWhwP-GmuptNw-uw8t8Z_lb1YV2QD9FMQKRG0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111125010044/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3243/is_3_68/ai_n29195145/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3243/is_3_68/ai_n29195145/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929032708/http://www.dailycampus.com/2.7438/roe-v-wade-a-classic-example-of-judicial-activism-1.1053615 to http://www.dailycampus.com/2.7438/roe-v-wade-a-classic-example-of-judicial-activism-1.1053615
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110713170908/http://www.krcrtv.com/news/24515963/detail.html to http://www.krcrtv.com/news/24515963/detail.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140505060543/http://www.lawofisrael.com/israeli-supreme-court-decisions/ to http://www.lawofisrael.com/israeli-supreme-court-decisions/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070712213346/http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22mar20051400/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/96924.pdf to http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22mar20051400/www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate/pdf/108hrg/96924.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:28, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Judicial activism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140119112244/http://causelists.nic.in/scnew/pollmatter.html to http://causelists.nic.in/scnew/pollmatter.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirect from "Judicial Fiat"?

Currently, "judicial fiat" redirects to this article. This seems, to me, incorrect. Judicial activism is a far broader term and judicial fiat is a narrower form of judicial policymaking that is not necessarily judicial activism and can be distinctively passive. Lukacris (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

UK and Judicial Activism in doubt

Am not familiar with Judicial activism in the UK but would like more evidence that scholars agree it's established. I also read article like like this which question whether it's on the rise altogether. ~ Shushugah (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/hot-topics-judicial-activism https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1994/06/10/retired-justice-changes-stand-on-death-penalty/9ccde42b-9de5-46bc-a32a-613ae29d55f3/ https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/05/24/activism-v-restraint https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/02/barack-obama-unelected-supreme-court?newsfeed=true https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/aba_president_says_obamas_initial_remarks_on_judicial_activism_are_troublin https://www.nesl.edu/blog/detail/a-true-legal-horror-story-the-Laws-leading-to-the-salem-witch-trials. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. /wiae /tlk 12:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Merger proposal of: Judicial activism in the European Union, Canada and India, into this article

The template at the top of this article currently mentions "deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject." Below that it mentions: "See also: Judicial activism in the European Union, Judicial activism in Canada", and there is also the equally short and source-starved Judicial Activism in India

I suppose it would be best to merge those three articles into this one to resolve problems of all four articles (the lack of a worldwide view of this one, and the lack of content and sourcing which would justify separate articles for the last ones).

I thus propose merging all 3 into this one.

@Emeraude, Rajat9428, Shashwat312, Srin2015, Honi02, Shyamsunder, and Ufk iitk: I am suggesting a merge of the Judicial activism in India article which you have made contributions to Xavdeman (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC) @Omnicog, Vincet, and Rhombus: I am suggesting a merge of the Judicial activism in Canada article which you have made contributions to Xavdeman (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC) @QuotationMan and Binary TSO: I am suggesting a merge of the Judicial activism in the European Union article which you have made contributions to Xavdeman (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Xavdeman (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah merging the India page probably makes sense. There's not much there to begin with, and it has quite a bit of extra information, which is out of date - for example, the tenure of the current Chief justice of India. Shashwat312 (talk) 20:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I confess I have no strong opinion on this. My involvement with the India article was merely a tidying up, grammar and punctuation exercise, though I noted then that the article does not really cover the title. The only relevant phrase is "the judiciary has played a very active role in dispensing justice" which, it seems to me, is a truism that applies to the judiciary in every country and has nothing to do with "judicial activism". As such the article is probably a candidate for deletion rather than merging. Emeraude (talk) 08:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

•   Y Merge completed Joyous! Noise! 03:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

we must add a history section.

the article is incomplete without a history section. what is the history of juditial activisim? how far back in human history dose it go? whare in the world did it originate? ect. RJJ4y7 (talk) 12:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)