Judicial Activism

The left in this country and in Florida cannot and will not succeed in establishing their liberal, anti-family agenda without activist judges–judges who legislate from the bench and force their social agenda on the American people. Liberals have failed to get their agenda passed through elected bodies of government that are accountable to real people who have families and vote their values. Whether the issue is abortion, gay marriage, the pledge of allegiance, religious liberty or property rights issues, liberals must rely upon the activist judges who are seeking radical social change through the unconstitutional use of raw judicial power.

Talking Points and Basic Information

Judicial Activism (Video)
Focus on the Family

Judicial Philosophy
Focus on the Family

Talking Points on Judicial Philosophy
Focus on the Family

Five Judicial Myths: Talking Points About the Judiciary
David Barton, WallBuilders
The Judiciary is not a co-equal branch of government.

What is “Judicial Activism?” – Liberals Try To Redefine It
Jordan Lorence, Alliance Defending Freedom
The Washington Post Monday contains an article on judicial activism.  This article shows a subtle, but significant distortion in the definition of the term, so that liberals can attack the current Supreme Court as being dominated by conservative “activists.”  The Washington Post shallowly and erroneously defines “judicial activism” as a court striking down a law passed by Congress.

Return to the Constitution: Judicial Activism or Originalism?
Zachary Rogers, Family Research Council
Many on the Left think that overturning any of the bad precedent churned out by the Supreme Court is partisan judicial activism. It is not. To understand this, we must comprehend the structure the Framers crafted, the role of judicial review within it, and the place of the other branches within this system.

Judicial Activism From Supreme Court on Marriage. Here’s How to Respond.
Ryan T. Anderson, PhD, The Heritage Foundation
The U.S. Supreme Court got it wrong: It should not have mandated all 50 states to redefine marriage. This is judicial activism: nothing in the Constitution requires the redefinition of marriage, and the court imposed its judgment about a policy matter that should be decided by the American people and their elected representatives.

Judicial Activism and the Threat to the Constitution
Robert P. George, Family Research Council
Judicial power can be used, and has been used, for both good and ill. However, in a basically just democratic republic, judicial power should never be exercised—even for desirable ends—lawlessly. Judges are not legislators.

The ‘Judicial Activism’ Ploy
Thomas Sowell, National Review Online
Now that two different federal courts have declared Obamacare unconstitutional, the administration’s answer is to call the courts guilty of “judicial activism.”

Our Legal System Is Broken—Here’s How We Can Fix It 
Maureen Collins, Alliance Defending Freedom
When both political parties see a single vacancy on the Supreme Court as pure political opportunity—or crisis—we know that something has gone horribly wrong. The framers of our Constitution never intended the judicial branch to have the authority to create sweeping policies across the nation. The federal judiciary was separated from the executive and the legislative branches specifically so they could be impartial judges, including discerning whether a challenged law is within the limits of the Constitution or not.

The Virtues of Judicial Self-Restraint
William Haun, The Public Discourse
To faithfully apply the original public meaning of liberty protected by the Constitution—that is to say, to be a faithful originalist—one must acknowledge that both a contractarian view of individual liberty and a Whig view of the liberty to make laws were held by the founding generation.

Role of the Courts
The Heritage Foundation
Not only have federal courts grabbed power, they also have changed how judges carry out one of the core functions of the judiciary: interpreting laws. The proper role of a judge in a constitutional republic is a modest one. Ours is, in the words of John Adams, a “government of laws and not of men.” This basic truth requires that disputes be adjudicated based on what the law actually says and according to its original public meaning, rather than the whims and personal wishes of judges.

Ensuring Judicial Accountability For State Judges
In this day of rampant judicial agendas, proposals that judges should be protected from citizens are untenable. History is too instructive on the necessity of direct judicial accountability for its lessons to be ignored today; and while judicial accountability through the use of impeachment on the federal level appears to be a thing of the past, judicial accountability through the direct election of State judges should not be.

The “Activist” Journey of the Florida Supreme Court 
Colleen Pero
This study of the Florida Supreme Court was prepared as a result of several controversial rulings by the Court in recent years. The cases discussed here provide an alarming insight of how judicial activism can undermine legislative intent and compromise the separation of powers inherent in our constitutional form of government.

Natural Law, the Constitution, and Judicial Review
Robert P. George, Fordham Law Review
The concept of “natural law” is central to the Western tradition of thought about morality, politics, and law.

A Tale of Two Constitutions
David Barton, WallBuilders
The subject of constitutional interpretation may seem like a topic best fitted for an ivory-tower debate, but it actually has a very real and dramatic impact on daily life (as will be demonstrated shortly). In recent years, two competing viewpoints have emerged. Probably the first exposure most citizens had to the two views came during the 2000 presidential debates.

Why Do Supreme Court Justices Shift Leftward?
Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr.
Authors Jon D. Hanson and Adam Benforado argue that structural, intellectual, and social factors all play a part in the leftward drift evident in so many justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Moral Argument in Modern Times: A Conversation with Robert P. George
Dr. Albert Mohler, Jr.
How is it that we now face a reality in which what we are facing is nothing less than a moral revolution. What was once considered wrong is now celebrated and normalized. And what was once normalized is now considered wrong.

Books & Media

Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion (Book)
David Barton
An essential resource for anyone interested in our nation’s religious heritage and the Founders’ intended role for the American judicial system. Original Intent combines hundreds of quotes from primary sources with the author’s exposition on hot topics such as revisionism, judicial activism, and separation of church and state. A substantial appendix encompasses full texts of the founding documents, biographical sketches of numerous Founders, and extensive reference notes.

Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America (Book)
Mark Levin
Conservative talk radio host, lawyer, and frequent National Review contributor Mark R. Levin comes out firing against the United States Supreme Court in Men in Black, accusing the institution of corrupting the ideals of America’s founding fathers. The court, in Levin’s estimation, pursues an ideology-based activist agenda that oversteps its authority within the government.

Restraining Judicial Activism
David Barton
This enlightening book addresses the crisis of judicial activism in today’s government, revealing an overlooked Constitutional provision: impeachment, the recourse prescribed by the Founders for an unaccountable judiciary. Learn how to recognize judicial activism and reinstate judicial accountability.

5 Judicial Myths: Restoring a Constitutional Judiciary (CD)
Learn from the Founders’ own writings what their true constitutional intent for the Judiciary was and equip yourself with information so you can disprove popular myths about this branch.

Share This