NCJ Number
44088
Journal
Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Volume: 4 Issue: 2 Dated: (SPRING 1977) Pages: 279-293
Date Published
1977
Length
15 pages
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.