Judicial Dissonance: An Analysis of Judicial Activism

Matthew P. Cohen, Southwestern University School of Law

Abstract

This comment will examine the debate over judicial activism with a particular focus on commentary spawned from the recent U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court decisions, as well as Bush v. Gore . First, to lay the foundation of the comment, judicial impartiality and independence will be examined. This will bring to light the controlling norms of how judges are to ideally conduct themselves and render opinions in order to maintain public confidence in the judicial system. This comment will then discuss judicial activism and its history within jurisprudence. Transitioning from the history of judicial activism to a more contemporary discussion on the topic, this comment will examine commentary on recent U.S. Supreme Court and California Supreme Court cases as examples of the current discussions about modern judicial activism. An argument will be made that modern judicial activism lost its meaning within jurisprudence by becoming a political device used to further divide this nation. To conclude, an argument will be made that modern judicial activism can be reconciled within jurisprudence by being more firmly rooted in the debate over originalism versus interpretivism as methods of judicial interpretation.