Democracy and development-xz - Essay Example

The analysis of law by the Supreme Court can be understood as destructive or proactive depending on an individual’s beliefs and opinion. However, individual beliefs and opinion are not the primary focus of the judicial system. In this perspective, political struggles emerge with opposing and proposing sentiments (Stone 78). Some citizens and scholars understand the importance of judicial activism while others argue against it. Judicial activism inclines to contradict the essence of democracy.

Many judges oppose various clauses in the constitution and consider it wise to alter those clauses to make them conform to their personal or group beliefs. However, constitution demonstrates democracy, which all individuals should apprehend for the best interest of the public (Jordan 56). The constitution is a living representative of the opinion and beliefs of the majority in the United State. People elect senators and representatives who alter and add to the constitution to make it speak for people.

To this end, if the constitution is not apprehend as a structure of justice, then the structure of justice will be left in the hands of individuals, therefore contradicting the fundamental nature of democracy-rule of citizens (Reitz 67). Individuals that advocate for judicial restraint argue that judicial activism may increase the likelihood of the United State been coerced into a state of anarchy. The concept invalidates the purpose of the rule of law, which is to eradicate the sense of injustice and reality of injustice.

Judicial activism slows the process of trials and increases the uncertainty and victims may not understand it as objectively just. It reduces the chances of a peaceful process of settlement of disputes and temptation to violent on individuals in attempting to obtain justice emerges. Violent self-help brings about vigilantism and finally anarchy. Supreme Court judges not only interpret the constitution to suit their personal interest but also make