Skip to content

Activist Judges: What is their main mission

Activist judges

Activist judges are out there. It’s our responsibility as citizens to be able to support the decisions made by judges. The judicial branch of government is a vital one, and it needs advocates. Judges are not immune to the influence of politics or public opinion. Still, when they make unpopular decisions with certain groups, it often seems difficult for those people to voice their disagreement. This blog post will explore how activist judges have affected American society over the past few decades.

The role of activism in judging has changed since SCOTUS decided to Roe v Wade in 1973.

Activist judges use their position within the judiciary system to promote social justice rather than simply enforcing existing law; these individuals can decide which laws should be enforced and which should not.

Sitting on the bench are activist judges, people who find themselves in a position of power and use it to change society. These judges have been instrumental in changing the dialogue around LGBT rights, women’s reproductive health, affirmative action, and more.

The judiciary branch is one of three branches that make up our government system, and these activists are using their power to challenge other institutions. For example, a judge ruled against Trump’s travel ban because he was acting outside his authority–the president cannot legally ban immigrants from entering the country based on religion alone.

Activist judges are a threat to democracy, so these judges must be held accountable for their actions. In the United States, activist judges have been involved in decision-making and overturned Congress passed laws.

Judges are supposed to be impartial and unbiased, but that’s not always the case. To ensure a fair trial for all parties involved, it is important to know if your judge has any history of activism or bias. The Judicial Database Project (JDP) aims to identify activist judges to help litigants make informed decisions about their cases.

The judicial system is a wall that activists, non-profits, and the general public have tirelessly tried to tear down for years.

Activists constantly give up their time to protect people from injustice, and this blog post will explore how activist judges are making it even more difficult. Judges who rule against the law or an individual’s right can be described as “activist.”

These activist judges don’t care what the law says or what individuals need; they want to make a statement about whatever issue they are passionate about. This means that when activists go into court with cases related to police brutality, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, immigration reform—anything really—they’ll face an opponent in a judge who has already made up their mind.

It’s hard to believe that judges in the United States can decide on cases with their own moral compass rather than what is written in the law. The judicial system is supposed to be impartial and uphold the Constitution.

It seems like activist judges try to do whatever they can for those who need it most, forgetting that sometimes this isn’t best for everyone else. Judges should focus on upholding the law, not making up new ones. This country needs a judge who will make decisions based solely on facts and information found within the case – not personal feelings or beliefs about social issues.

Important cases where an activist judge potentially ruled

If you are interested in doing some deep-diving research, feel free to look up any of the following cases, and get back to us with your opinions on them.

1. 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford

2. 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson

3. 1954 Brown v Board of Education of Topeka Kansas

4. 1964 Miranda vs Arizona

5. 1995 Planned Parenthood v Casey

6, 1996 Romer V Evans

7. 2003 Lawrence V Texas

8. 2007 Obergfell vs Hodges (same-sex marriage)

If you’re an activist, a judge that has ruled in your favor is the best kind.

Activists are often disappointed when their activism doesn’t lead to change, but when it does, it’s a huge victory! The recent ruling on DAPL was just such a situation- and here’s why:

Judge James Boasberg’s rule against the pipeline was good for activists who tried so hard to stop the project from being built and for indigenous groups who were going to be affected by its construction. After all of these years of struggling with pipelines and other projects like fracking that have destroyed our environment, this triumph is significant. It feels great knowing that there are still some people out there fighting back.

Why do you think this is an issue? Do you believe it’s an issue? If so, why? Some people feel activist judges violate the separation of powers between different branches of government because they can override decisions made by elected officials such as the president or congress members. What do you think about this opinion?

Viable Outreach | Activism for the 99%