Judicial Activism Can Kiss My Butt

In my mind, “legislating from the bench” is defined as the act of allowing personal and political biases, opinions, and preferences to interfere with a judge’s verdict on a case. Google definitions seem to agree with me, stating, “Judicial activism is a judicial ruling suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law.” Those who describe themselves as Conservatives would most likely describe judicial activism in a more positive light, referencing morality and the assurance of justice in their arguments, whilst those who consider themselves to be Liberals would most likely identify themselves with me and consolidate their opinions with my own. Liberals would most likely use a negative connotation when defining the concept, using terms like ‘accused’ and ‘suspected’, just as the online definitions did. A Conservative, however, would argue that “legislating from the bench” is in a sense derogatory of a great institution which has personalized an oftentimes cold, calculated, and robotic judicial system. One in agreement with this would generally claim that judicial activism ensures that the ‘right’ decision is made, the high road is taken, and the smallest of citizens is not left to fall through the cracks. This, however, is not the case. It is a glorification of an extremely flawed legal system.

No branch of the federal government should at any point be stronger than the other two branches, nor should it encroach on the duties, privileges, and responsibilities of any equal or higher power. An imbalance in the branches could be potentially catastrophic. The separation of powers assures that no single party will be able to monopolize the government, which keeps the interests of our population safe, and keeps communism a mistake from which we have learned, not a future destination.

Though at first glance, one may think the American public would rally for an activist Supreme Court because of the angle of morality and special attention to each individual case, one couldn’t be more wrong. The fear on which the Liberal party thrives in a sense relative to judicial activism is fueled by an aversion by the general public to a Justice’s greed for power. It is thought that the extent of the judicial activism in play today is just a taste, which could increase to a significant spoonful, which could ultimately blossom into a full blown bowl of personal preferences, biases, and political opinions which would decide the fate of each verdict, next to which would be the head of Justice on a silver platter. At some point, the increase of activism could negate the purpose of evidence, hearings, juries, and trials when a Justice determines a case before it even begins. The general public acknowledges law as “a body of known rules to guide individual and social conduct.” The rules will cease to matter when cases become subject to the whim of a Justice with fickle political and personal bearings.

In 2005, Theresa ‘Terri’ Schiavo, who had sustained irreparable brain damage and was essentially vegetative for nearly fifteen years, was disconnected from her feeding tube and allowed to die. There had been an uproar taking course over several years between her husband, who had found a new relationship and wished for his wife to no longer suffer, and Schiavo’s Catholic family, who believed that the purposeful ending of any life was ‘unholy’, 'unconstitutional', and immoral. When Schiavo's husband was heard out by courts and physicians alike, Terri's life was ended. Outraged, her family rallied to assure this would not be allowed to happen to anyone else. The issue of physician-assisted suicide was brought to the US Supreme Court in 2006, and in a 6-3 split, it was decided that “the U.S. attorney general could not prosecute doctors assisting in suicides under the Oregon Death With Dignity Act.”

When this case hit the Montana Supreme Court, an opposing 5-2 split was reached. A Montana Justice, Jim Rice claims the ruling "ignores expressed (legislative) intent, parses statutes, and churns reasons to avoid the clear policy of the state and reach an untenable conclusion. ... In my view, the court's conclusion is without support, without clear reason and without moral force." The Montana Supreme Court stated “a physician was not liable under state law or ‘public policy’ for giving a terminal patient a drug that the patient himself could use to end his own life.” This case was a clear example of activism. The Constitutional aspects of this case were blatantly ignored, and a more personal, ‘moral’ standpoint was taken up by the the majority of the Supreme Court Justices, contradicting the previous verdict.

In conclusion, I would like to argue that activism, while occasionally bringing about decisions agreeable with the public standards of morality and ethics, is wrong. The Constitution is best read as 'black text'; it clearly states what has been established as fair and just, therefore personal interpretation only serves to blur the line between the serving of justice and the failure to do so. It is the Judiciary branch's duty to say what the law is, not what it should be. "But Natalie!", cry Conservatives everywhere, "Activism only helps to assure that the cold, hard system doesn't claim yet another victim!" Well you know what? Judicial activism, my friends, can kiss my butt.