Publication Date
Spring 2025
School
Helms School of Government
Major
Government: Pre-Law
Keywords
U.S. Constitution, judicial activism, legislating from the bench, stare decisis, supreme court, federalism, strict originalism, judiciary, judicial independence
Disciplines
Constitutional Law | Courts | Judges | Jurisdiction | Law and Politics | Rule of Law | Supreme Court of the United States
Recommended Citation
Elliott, Jacob M., "Put Me in, Coach: Constitutional Concerns of Judicial Activism and Legislating from the Bench" (2025). Senior Honors Theses. 1466.
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/honors/1466
Abstract
Unrestrained judicial activism and legislating from the bench at the Supreme Court level place federalism and freedom in jeopardy. By ignoring crucial doctrines like jurisdiction, deference, and independence, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a tendency toward reinterpreting existing Constitutional precedent as they see fit, basing judgments on extra-legal influences, and supplanting Constitutional principles with their own personal policy preferences.
Numerous cases demonstrate the looming threat of judicial overreach; these cases are often considered some of the most damaging and injurious decisions in the history of the American federal judiciary. One potential solution is to appoint justices who will operate from a strict originalist foundation. If this were accomplished, it would significantly mitigate the likelihood of overstep.
Included in
Constitutional Law Commons, Courts Commons, Judges Commons, Jurisdiction Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Rule of Law Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons
