Judicial Activism in the United States is unjust.

The Pro will add its own definition of judicial activism to replace the words "impartial" and "judge's personal feelings" in the Con's definition that may unfairly sway some voters, as well as help to clarify what justice is. Judicial activism - the making of new public policies through the decisions of judges (1) == What is justice? == The Con believes that the idea of justice should be clarified early in the debate for the voters' convenience and believes that it may even end up being contested. The Con agrees with the Pro's definition of "unjust. " What determines something to be "fair, just or right" is that the benefits of the outcome outweigh the harms. If the Con can prove that judicial activism has more benefits than harms, then the Con will have proved that judicial activism is just and should receive your vote. The Pro should attempt to argue that the harms outweigh. This is the framework that the Con proposes. == The good stuff== 1. Judicial activism increases the public's political engagement with the law, allowing for direct democracy. As it stands, it is extremely difficult for Congress to move social reforms; they are just too controversial! It may take years for long-time-coming-decisions such as welfare reform, civil rights, or new public opinion on foreign wars to pass through Congress. As such, a Constitution and law that become archaic when it's difficult to change them fail to accurately represent the people anymore. Grassroots activism, the kind of mass opinion that must be represented in our government for it to claim that it's accurate to our will, can only go through the Supreme Court, for that is where it is most successful. "Legal mobilization strategies can nevertheless benefit social movements in a number of important ways: Litigation can raise expectations, spark indignation and hope, and stimulate a rights consciousness among movement constituents and supporters; it can help legitimize a movement's goals and values, publicize the movement's causes, and provide leverage in bargaining powerful elites. " (2) -Public opinion is magnified and affects our government much more strongly if it goes through the Supreme Court. Supreme Court rulings are what give new beliefs the boost needed to finally break the level of apathy and red tape that changing government policy is. Judicial activism is necessary to make sure these movements and public outcries remain strong. 2. Judicial activism is the method for social reform. The people should be free to try judicial activism, especially because Congress itself sometimes uses judicial activism to push social reforms that it knows are important! "Congress allows the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts to engage in judicial activism because Congress, following popular opinion, actually likes or is at least ambivalent about the policy results being arrived at. Congress prefers that the courts legislate these popular results to legislating them itself because individual Congressmen [and women] do not want to go on record as voting for activist policies because those policies are controversial. " (3) -The reasons for which it's difficult to make change through Congress are the same reasons that Congresspeople use the Supreme Court for judicial activism; change is touchy. Even if a change to the law is important and necessary, Congresspeople are afraid to stick their necks out for it because they will be penalized for it at their next election by the voters who weren't happy with their decision. The Supreme Court gives them a way out, so that they can still support improvements to the law (even though they may claim they had nothing to do with it afterward). If judicial activism stops, Congress will have to face the brunt of public backlash and will once again be lax in wanting to support changes to current policy. This will slow down effective action for new issues. == The Con's case== To sum up, judicial activism benefits the American people because it increases the representation of movements and because it's a path clear of bureaucratic red tape for social reform. The Con will make rebuttal arguments for the Pro's points in the next round, and suggests the Pro do the same for the arguments made above. (1) www. semp. us/publications/disaster_dictionary. php (2) Sandra Levitsky; Cause Lawyers and Social Movements; "to lead with Law: Reassessing the Influence of Legal Advocacy", 2006 Organizations in Social Movements; 2006; pp. 146-147; AC] (3) Steven Calabresi, "Article: The Congressional Roots of Judicial Activism," The Journal of Law & Politics, Fall 2004