Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy holding that courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of their decisions. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint . [ 1 ]
Dutch judge Marc Bossuyt stated in a speech that the living instrument doctrine is "a Trojan horse for judicial activism, giving Strasbourg judges the liberty to find what they want to find in the interstices of Convention rights". [16] Other critics argue that the state parties should only be bound by the original obligations as understood in ...
Opponents of the doctrine tend to use the term as an epithet synonymous with "judicial activism" (itself a hotly-debated phrase). However, just as some conservative theorists have embraced the term Constitution in Exile , which similarly gained popularity through use by liberal critics, textualism was a term that had pejorative connotations ...
Judges may employ judicial activism to promote their own conception of the social good. The definition of judicial activism and whether a specific decisions is activist are controversial political issues. [40] The legal systems of different nations vary in the extent that judicial activism may be permitted.
Judicial power is never exercised for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the judge, always for the purpose of giving effect to the will of the legislature; or, in other words, to the will of the law. [1] Concerns with regard to recidivism and other law and order issues have led to the introduction of mandatory sentencing. E.g.
Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that recommends favoring the status quo in judicial activities and is the opposite of judicial activism.Aspects of judicial restraint include the principle of stare decisis (that new decisions should be consistent with previous decisions); a conservative approach to standing (locus standi) and a reluctance to grant certiorari; [1] and a tendency ...
Judicial interpretation is the way in which the judiciary construes the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary.This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review.
Judicial populism or juridical populism is a phenomenon where the judgments and actions of the courts are driven by the perception of the masses or certain groups. [1] The term, which some refer to as popular constitutionalism, has been described as a reaction to the perceived elitist bias in the legal system.