This is now a dangerous era for the America's judicial system. The term judicial activism has primarily been throw around by those who consider themselves to be conservative, however who is really behind it, and what are the religious implications fueling the debate? Some people want to oust judges based on an evaluation of their faith or lack of it, which they believe to be guiding their court decisions.

The word judicial activism has been abused recently by those who claim to have an understanding of politics. Some of the Republicans and others; those who generally identify themselves as conservative have found fault with individuals within the judicial branch, who they believe are legislating behind the bench, which is the job of Congress. Somehow judicial activism has become a bad thing because it makes people think of judges who have in particular cases attempted to make gay marriage legal and abortions easier without the aid of the legislative branch. These choices do not fit within the construct of many Americans' faiths, therefore it is understandable why they are against judicial activism. However, if judges did a 360 degree turnaround, and ordered all textbooks in US without reverence to Jesus Christ to be banned, and mandated Christian prayer in public school without the option of opting out, would this type of judicial activism be acceptable? If you answer yes, then the issue is not judicial activism, but a fundamental disagreement with the judge, who makes decisions that do not match your religious values.

If judicial activism did not exist, who knows if I, as an African-American could write this without the threat of persecution. It is ironic to me that no one ever states today that individuals who did not support Civil Rights in the 1950's and 1960's were unfaithful to religious doctrine, and they should not, because none of us are perfect. Yet let us remember it took judges to establish Brown vs. the Topeka Board of Education, which led to the integration of schools around the US, throw out the Dred Scot decision, ended legal segregation, and the establishment of many laws that have made it easier for women to have a say within our borders.

Now I must recognize that there some federal judges who have prejudices against organized religion. There are also some who may not always be favorable, when it comes to women and minorities. In my opinion, a judge should make sure there is no discrimination in the US, within reason and support religion, where it is being persecuted. While religion or the lack of it can shape our political ideology, no one behind the bench or in any other branch of government should attempt to make the US have an established religion, regardless of their faith. Yes, there is no mention of separation of Church and State in the Constitution, but this Church going person knows the Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 weakens the argument of anyone who believes the Founding Fathers and early members of Congress believed otherwise. The whole controversy behind judicial activism proves to me that we should seek political balance in our courts, and vote on judges based on the total package, not based on a few court cases where you might want the law changed. I like the fact that we have individual judges who are against and for abortion and the death penalty, even where I do not agree. Some laws I do not like, such as the legality of cigarettes which causes us billions each year, as a nation in healthcare costs, but unfortunately there is little moral outrage. However, I would not even imply that those who disagree with me are somehow less religious.

More Politics Articles

Politics Sections