Too much of a good thing can be bad, and democracy is no exception. In the United States, the antidote to what the drafters of the Constitution called â€œthe excess of democracyâ€ is judicial review. Lately, however, judicial review has come under fire. Many on both sides of the political aisle accuse the Supreme Court of being overly activist and insufficiently deferential to the elected representatives of the people. I argue in this essay that criticizing the Court for its activism is exactly backwards: We need more judicial activism, not less. Courts engaging in judicial review are bound to err on one side or the other from time to time. It is much better for the health of our constitutional democracy if they err on the side of activism, striking down too many laws rather than too few. An examination of both constitutional theory and our own judicial history shows that too little activism produces worse consequences than does too much. If we cannot assure that the judges tread the perfect middle ground (and we cannot), it is better to have an overly aggressive judiciary than an overly restrained one.
A Summary of Why We Need More Judicial Activism, 16 Green Bag. 449
Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/faculty-publications/380