⇒ Usually associated with liberal judges (and loose constructionism) and involves decision making that fundamentally alters the meaning of previous decisions and which change public policy. As seen in Brown vs Board, Roe vs Wade, etc.
⇒ In recent years there has been a rise in conservative activism, where judges have sought to steer public policy in a conservative fashion (e.g. Bush vs Gore 2000 effectively decided the presidential election in favour of the republicans when the court ruled that the manual recounts used in Florida were unconstitutional because not all votes were being recounted)
⇒ Gregg vs Georgia 1976 could be considered 'conservative' activism as 'cruel and unusual' was interpreted to mean that the death penalty is constitutional
⇒ Alito and Scalia, the courts two most conservative justices, are itching to ban abortion and affirmative action
⇒ Citizens united vs FEC 2010 declared large swathes of the campaign finance law unconstitutional. It is felt that this decision will benefit Republicans, who tend to receive money from corporations
⇒ Does not alter previous decisions or seek to alter public policy/ decisions made by elected bodies. Seeks to update the meaning of existing law, perhaps by chipping away gradually at previous court rulings. Even these decisions have political impact.
⇒ Gonzales vs Carhart restricted abortion without banning it
⇒ Plessy vs Ferguson 1896 upheld southern segregation
⇒ National federation of independent business vs Sebelius 2012 - SCOTUS upheld the Affordable Care Act. Roberts sided with the liberals, indicating the court isn't as activist as some conservatives would like
⇒ Tends to be more associated with conservatives and strict constructionism but it could be argued that liberals take this approach too with the death penalty which has been chipped away at with Roper vs Simmons
⇒ Also see our notes on: