Judicial Activism
Definition:Judicial activism is a noun that refers to a way of interpreting the law, especially the Constitution, where judges make decisions based on the current needs and values of society, rather than just the strict wording of the law. Essentially, it means that judges can consider what is happening in the world today when they make their rulings.
Usage Instructions: - You can use "judicial activism" when discussing legal decisions or the role of judges in interpreting laws. - It's often used in conversations about court cases, especially those heard by the Supreme Court.
Example: "Many people believe that judicial activism is necessary to ensure that laws reflect modern values, while others argue that it undermines the Constitution."
Advanced Usage: In academic or professional discussions, you might see phrases like "the implications of judicial activism on democratic governance" or "judicial activism versus judicial restraint," which compare different judicial philosophies.
Word Variants: - "Judicial" (adjective): Related to courts or judges. - "Activism" (noun): The policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change.
Different Meaning:Though "activism" generally refers to active campaigning for political or social change, in this context, it specifically relates to judges taking an active role in shaping laws through their rulings.
Synonyms: - Judicial intervention - Judicial engagement
Idioms and Phrasal Verbs: - There aren’t specific idioms or phrasal verbs that directly relate to "judicial activism," but you could use phrases like "take a stand" (to express a strong opinion about something) when discussing judges’ decisions under this philosophy.
Summary:Judicial activism is a term used to describe when judges make decisions based on the needs and values of society today, rather than just following the letter of the law.