skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 44088 Find in a Library
Title: PLACE FOR JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ON THE PART OF A STATE'S HIGHEST COURT
Journal: HASTINGS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW QUARTERLY  Volume:4  Issue:2  Dated:(SPRING 1977)  Pages:279-293
Author(s): J D CAMERON
Corporate Author: University of California
Hastings College of Law
United States of America
Date Published: 1977
Page Count: 15
Sponsoring Agency: University of California
San Francisco, CA 94102
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: A STATE SUPREME COURT CHIEF JUSTICE EXAMINES THE DEBATE CONCERNING THE PROPER DEGREE OF JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE IN ISSUING UNANTICIPATED DECISIONS AND IN ADMINISTERING THE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
Abstract: THE DISCUSSION OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM IN THE STATE SUPREME COURT DECISIONMAKING PROCESS ARGUES FOR JUDICIAL RESTRAINT. IT IS NOTED THAT, IN EXERCISING JUDICIAL RESTRAINT, THE COURTS DO WHAT IS EXPECTED OF THEM, THUS BENEFITING SOCIETY. WHEN THE COURTS ENGAGE IN LAWMAKING, THEY USURP THE HISTORIC AND PROPER ROLE OF THE LEGISLATURE AND ENGAGE IN AN ACTIVITY FOR WHICH THEY ARE ILL EQUIPPED. THE ARGUMENT FOR JUDICIAL RESTRAINT IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DETRIMENTAL EFFECT OF JUDICIAL ACTIVISM ON THE COURT'S CASELOAD. JUDICIAL ACTIVISM LEADS TO UNCERTAINTY IN THE LAW, AND UNCERTAINTY LEADS TO MORE LITIGATION AND INCREASED CASELOADS. ALTHOUGH JUDICIAL RESTRAINT IS ADVISED IN THE DECISIONMAKING PROCESS, STATE SUPREME COURTS ARE URGED TO FOLLOW A COURSE OF ACTIVISM IN JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION. IT IS ARGUED THAT STATE SUPREME COURTS HAVE THE INHERENT POWER TO DO WHAT IS NECESSARY TO FUNCTION AS COURTS AND THAT THEY SHOULD EXERCISE THIS POWER IN THREE WAYS: BY MAKING RULES GOVERNING PROCEDURES FOR THE OPERATION OF ALL COURTS IN THE STATE JUDICIAL SYSTEM; BY CONTROLLING THE ADMISSION TO PRACTICE AND THE SUPERVISION AND DISCIPLINE OF MEMBERS OF THE BAR; AND BY REMOVING MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY WHO ARE GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT OR WHO ARE UNABLE TO SERVE AS JUDGES.
Index Term(s): Judicial decisions; Judicial restraint; Public administration; State government; State supreme courts
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=44088

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.