John Cooper votes in favour of judges taking a stand in the face of bad legislation
The common response to any argument which supports the concept of judicial activism is that it strikes against the very fundamentals of democracy, that of electoral accountability and the sovereignty of parliament. After all, when taken in a UK context, our judges are not elected, unlike in the US, and do not have to take account of public tastes or inclinations when coming to a judgment.
At a sound-bite level, this approach seems not only solid, but a comfortable position to take for any democrat. But close analysis reveals that not only is judicial activism an essential safeguard to the protection of good law, it is also, when needed, a bulwark to protect democracy in difficult or unbalanced times.
But what do we mean by the term, judicial activism? Essentially it is an attitude taken by the judiciary to correct badly drafted legislation, achieve a just resolution in the face of bad law and challenge the legislator when its actions will
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
