Arguments Against Judicial Activism

In the final analysis, the Court’s judicial “activism” has been terribly misguided. Instead of creating constitutional “penumbras” in Griswold, the Court should have upheld the limits on corporate expenditures in Citizens United. Instead of inventing a right to abortion in Roe, the Court should have upheld aggregate limits on individual contributions in McCutcheon. Instead of defining “liberty” in the most broad and unworkable terms in Planned Parenthood, the Court should have held that the Presentment Clause was ambiguous and therefore upheld the Line Item Veto Act in Clinton. This type of “activism” by the Court would have strengthened democracy, promoted bottom-up lawmaking, made elected officials more accountable to the people, and enabled government to work for the people, not simply the powerful. DEMOCRACY IS UNSUSTAINABLE

Democracy while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.

John Adams

The above statement has merit if one assumes that democracy is destined to devolve into a society where greed, …show more content…
The devolution of democracy is not inevitable if government embraces a commitment to the principles on which it is founded. Unfortunately, the Court’s jurisprudence has done the opposite, sanctioning the use of money to gain undue influence over and unfair access to elected officials, allowing states to condition the quality of education on wealth, and permitting de facto segregation to endure. Until the causes of inequality are remedied, the United States will continue to prove John Adams correct—perhaps