In the space of just a few weeks recently, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg accused her court of being "one of the most activist courts in history" for its willingness to strike down laws, and Justice Antonin Scalia criticized his colleagues for their "activism" in creating new rights not present in the Constitution.
The phrase "judicial activism," many now believe, clearly has become an empty vessel to be filled with the speaker's own vision of when justices and judges are right or wrong. And the meaning of "judicial restraint" may be equally muddled to the average person.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
