Judicial activism is my preferred judicial philosophy, and I think it should be everyone’s preferred judicial philosophy for many reasons. When we think of judicial activism we think of applying the law past the limits of our Constitution, past the 4000 words that may restrict us from doing what's right. We think of Supreme Court justices and their personal philosophies coming into play, having a direct impact on our society and government. Judicial activism can accomplish so much more than its counterpart, judicial restraint; in today’s political climate, activism needs to become the default.

When we think of the Supreme Court, circuit courts, federal courts, and state courts, we think of our judicial system and processes. We think of how they work together to form this unified body, each level of court upholding the rule of law. There are 3 branches of government: the Legislative branch (outlined in Article I), the Executive branch (outlined in Article II), and the Judicial branch (outlined in Article III). The government’s purpose is to serve and protect the people, each branch of government taking an equal and important role in doing so. 

Our government is “by the people, for the people,'' as highlighted in Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in 1863. A government’s job, especially the United States’s government, is to serve the people and to “create a more perfect union.” The Constitution was created with that in mind. How can 1⁄3 of our government, the Judicial branch headed by the Supreme Court, best serve its people using Judicial restraint? How can we limit ourselves to 4000 words instead of applying those words to fix problems in our society, so that the decisions the courts make have a constructive impact on everyone in this country? 

Our government was made to serve the people, was made to help and protect the people, and we surrendered some of our natural rights for this reason. The Constitution outlines this, the Constitution was crafted to uphold a government that protects its people. The Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that is constantly changing as our country changes. The courts apply the Constitution in new ways all the time. The philosophy deeply rooted in the notion of Judicial restraint goes against this principle, that we can apply the Constitution beyond the limits of its 4000 words. The Constitution was created for that purpose, to be malleable in its services to Americans, and judicial restraint goes against this fact. 

1 ⁄3 of our government needs to do its job. The best way to achieve this is constantly and consistently applying the Constitution to better our society, the purpose of any government. When we restrain our beliefs and opinions when interpreting our Constitution, we restrain ourselves from making constructive changes for Americans. When we restrain ourselves to the Constitution’s 4000 words, preventing direct and constructive impacts, we go against the reason for its creation.