The legal definition of judicial activism identifies it as the act of judges’ making rulings that depend on bias. The jurists may be biased by political inclinations as well as personal opinions. They make these biased rulings on terms of justice, based on the correct interpretation of the law. The constitution provides the rightful judgments on crimes committed, and, in case there are specifications, the constitution clearly outlines them. All the judges are expected to do is to apply the constitution as it is.
Judicial activism is practiced and proposed by judges, who do not restrict themselves to the application and interpretation of the law in the right way. Instead, they use the opportunities, provided to pass judgment in court, to create their own law in order to make an impression to the public. For instance, some examples were given out of the interpretations made by the Supreme Court judges, who are judicial activists (John, 2009). They tend to interpret various constitution clauses that go out of line with the initial intended meaning.
Consequently, the biased judicial rulings, made by most jurists of the Supreme Court, are sometimes lethal to the country. For instance, in the United States various controversial political issues have risen in the recent period. The reason for them is that judges made wrong decisions about political parties. The judges made decisions that nullified the policies made by the duly elected political parties. Analysts, however, assert that some of the judgments passed were inconsiderate or were intended to retard rival political giants and parties (Brian, 2010).
The common nickname for the act of judicial activism is “judicial dictatorship”. The supreme judges are commonly influenced by high ranked political leaders, who make them act in their favor. In the United States an example of the judicial activism was demonstrated in favor of the federal party against their opponents, since the judges were federalists (John, 2009).
However, due to the tyrannical judgments made, people have come out with a strong protest against judicial activism. These people introduced the use of public
attention in court cases. The public interest litigation procedure in courts allows all the citizens, who seek the assistance of courts, get justice. This is enhanced by ensuring that the judges use the right interpretations of law and apply it appropriately.
Recently the United States Court System embraced the rightful understanding and application of the law. As a result, judges ought to be perfect in interpretation of the law. The reprimands, made by the government in order to make courts interpret law correctly, led to a mighty transformation in the United States. The Supreme Court as well stood up with an aim to eradicate biased handling of cases. This helped to hold up the spirit of constitution and to promote political and social cohesion (Brian, 2010).
An effect of judicial activism is that it can lead to disorientation of politicians, who start committing crimes since they are not afraid of the constitution. Whereas, embracing the spirit of constitution in supreme courts eliminates chances of corruption. The elimination of corruption sets the principles of justice concerning all people and helps the biased and correct interpretations of the law to prevail, excluding the priviledges of selfish interests . Again, the interpretation of the constitution is primarily done by the parliament, while courts just implement it. This, eventually, allows all stakeholders to work out their responsibilities as appropriate.