What are some possible negative consequences of judicial activism?

1. It sees the letter of the law and politics as separate issues.

In judicial activism, there is a political understanding of the law, while there is also a direct interpretation of it. Though these aspects often come together, they can also be very far apart. In the US, a judge can literally override any law simply because they feel like it, and he can even set aside a jury’s verdict under certain circumstances.

2. It does not apply any law.

When this type of judicial system is employed, it would seem that the laws do not apply, where judges can override any law that exists, which technically means there are no laws before their eyes.

3. Its rulings would eventually become final.

Judicial activism becomes a more profound subject for those who serve on the Supreme Court, as their rulings generally stand. With the power to have the final say on matters, their judicial opinions would also become standards for ruling on other cases. For example, when parts of the Defense of Marriage Act were struck down, many other judges also ruled that same sex marriage is permitted. Whether you feel these actions are good or bad, it occurred due to activism.

4. It might be influenced by personal affairs.

When judicial activism is exercised, it is often done for solely personal and selfish reasons, like one that might be political or one where a judge has received compensation for his judgment. Most likely, laws will be overruled when there is personal objection to them involved. For example, a fundamental Christian judge might rule that protest restriction laws against abortion clinics are constitutional, or a proponent judge could strike down a ban on abortion when passed. Often times, judicial activism has become predictable simply because people already know about the one who is ruling the case.

5. It appoints, rather than elects, judges.

Under judicial activism, many ruling judges are not elected, but rather appointed by government officials, which means that people in a region would not have any say as to how they want local judges to rule. In some cases, this system is taxation without representation, as money from taxpayers would go to support the judges’ salaries, while ruling based upon personal desires rather than what the local citizens want to see.

LIST OF PROS OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

1. It provides a system of checks and balances to the other branches of the government.

2. It allows for people to vote judges off the bench.

3. It can provide some helpful insights.

LIST OF CONS OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM

1. It could be influenced by personal affairs.

2. It can place rulings that would eventually become final.

3. It sees the letter of politics and law as separate issues.

he armenian genocide, also known as the armenian holocaust, was the ottoman government's systematic extermination of 1.5 million armenians, mostly citizens within the ottoman empire.

explanation: