Family Research Council (FRC) works to maintain the rule of law and constitutionalism in state and federal courts. All too often the courts engage in judicial activism, upending the will of the people on important social issues. FRC believes judges have an obligation to interpret the law as it is written and not to impose their own policy preferences. To that end FRC works to see that federal judges who are committed to the text and clear meaning of the Constitution and other laws are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. FRC also files "friend of the court" briefs in conjunction with the Alliance Defense Fund dealing with a variety of policy questions important to FRC.
Judicial Activism
"Judicial activism" describes an approach where judges impose their own policy preferences rather than interpret the law as written. When judges act in this manner, they usurp the role of the legislators, whom the citizens elect to represent them in deciding disputed, difficult policy issues. Thus, judicial activism undermines the very basis of our representative democracy.
The chief modern example of judicial activism is Roe v. Wade, where seven members of the Supreme Court invented a right to abortion that was nowhere found in the Constitution. Justice Byron White, who dissented in the case, said that the majority of the Court had engaged, "not in constitutional interpretation, but in the unrestrained imposition of its own, extraconstitutional value preferences." There are examples of judicial activism in other areas of the law as well.
Family Research Council promotes public education about the danger of judicial activism and calls for the return of a judiciary with more limited powers, according to the design of our nation's Founders, so that the American people can once again govern themselves on the most important issues of our day.
Resources:
Judicial Nominations
In recent decades, some judges have begun creating law, rather than interpreting it as intended by the Founders, thus effectively short-circuiting the democratic process. This trend has been particularly pronounced in areas important to FRC, such as human life, marriage, and religious liberty. It is critical to have a judiciary made up of judges who interpret the law and do not attempt to make it. FRC believes it is vitally important to get such judges confirmed to the courts, and has opposed Congressional efforts to delay or obstruct the confirmation of such judges. We also oppose any attempt to impose an unconstitutional religious test upon judicial nominees by obstructing confirmation of judges who are also people of faith.
Resources:
