Final answer:
Judicial activism is when courts override laws to expand individual rights, often seen as subjective and controversial. Earl Warren was a chief justice known for his judicial activist court, which made significant decisions, such as in the Brown v. Board of Education case.
Step-by-step explanation:
Judicial activism refers to the judicial philosophy where courts are more inclined to overturn laws and decisions made by other branches of government, primarily as a means to expand individual rights and liberties. This concept is often seen in contrast with judicial restraint, where judges defer more to the elected branches of government and focus on a narrower interpretation of the Constitution. A judge who practices judicial activism may view the Constitution as a living document that adapts to societal changes. One significant example of judicial activism is the privacy right that the Supreme Court found implicit in the Constitution, which led to landmark decisions like Roe v. Wade.
The term 'judicial activism' is sometimes used pejoratively by critics who view certain judicial decisions as overstepping the intended separation of powers, especially when these decisions are perceived as being influenced by the justices' personal beliefs rather than legal merits. However, it's important to note that what constitutes judicial activism can be subjective and is often labeled as such by those who disagree with a court's decision. The controversy centers on the belief that it can undermine the will of the electorate by allowing unelected judges to make or override laws.
One Supreme Court chief justice known for a judicial activist approach was Earl Warren. His tenure from 1953 to 1969 saw dramatic changes in civil rights and liberties, including the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional.