Do the courts (judges) make policy Should they - Essay Example

This has made it possible to make rulings that are up to the time, and work in favor of the situation at hand. Judicial activism should exist in order to allow courts make decisions without fear of reprisal or reprimand from policy makers, who tend to pass the buck whenever things are tough. It is sometimes difficult to put the blame on judges once they make a ruling on certain cases, especially after being thrown some of the hardest choices in legislations they sometimes have to contend with.

Policy makers are always quick to spinelessly punt the courts with the toughest legislations hoping that they might make decisions to the best of their ability. Unfortunately, they are the first individuals to criticize and chastise the courts for their efforts whenever things go awry. The formulation of ambiguous legislation in most areas of the United States is what leads individuals to believe that judicial activism should exist in order to bring some sanity to the justice system. It is my belief that the courts (judges) make policy in a bid to shed some light on some of the ambiguous statutes that exist (Taylor, 2009).

This paper will examine how judicial activism is exhibited in most courts, and how this aids the judicial system in its everyday functions. Every time a judge makes decisions based on the ambiguous statutes passed by the legislature, or gives contradicting facts about certain issues, the court (judge) is said to be engaging in judicial activism. For every defendant that is sent to trial, judicial activism comes into play. The truth of the matter is courts, especially courts of appeal, deal with numerous and countless ambiguous legislations.

This means that in the passing of judgment, it may be next to impossible to pinpoint which area exactly the law should be implemented, and how it should be applied (Stone, 2012). In most cases, there is a lot to interpret, which means that judges have to make the call on what