What do you think about judicial activism?

Well, that's just the thing. You might think it is a contradiction in terms, but that is a matter of opinion at best and simply a fallacy at worst. As a law student, I am beginning to realize that the law is NEVER as cut and dry as people want it to be. For example, take contract law. What if Person A sues Person B for a breach of contract because Person B was supposed to get some stuff delivered to Person A in a certain amount of time. Now suppose this comes before a judge and the judge reviews the contract and hears the story and finds out that Person B could not deliver the items because there was a railroad strike. Now, the contract made no provision for extenuating circumstances, so technically if the judge is following the letter of the law he would have to punish Person B and make him pay reparations to Person A. However, common sense dictates that there is nothing Person B could have done about it, and therefore some judges would refuse to punish Person B, and you know what? They are allowed to do so! Now take the example of the Fugitive Slave Laws. Do you HONESTLY believe that if an alleged slave (because many so-called slaves that were caught and "sent back" South were actually legitimately free, but no proof was required under this law) was brought before a judge, potentially to be sent South into slavery, that this judge should sentence them because it is their duty to follow the law? I would hope that no judge would do so!

Ok, your a law student. The contract scenario, it is not nessesarlily the contract the judge is interpreting in itself, but how the law views the contract. I'm sure you know, contract law varies state to state. In many cases, the judge would in all likelyhood, rule in favor of the plaintiff, unless their was a legal remedy in the law that ruled a contract cannot be considered in breach due to an organized labor action. It would not matter then that there was no such stipulation in the contract. I'll take that one step further. If such a stipulation in the law existed and the contract stated explicitly that a strike was not considered a viable excuse, the law would then render the contract in itself void and could not be considered breeched.

"Now take the example of the Fugitive Slave Laws. Do you HONESTLY believe that if an alleged slave (because many so-called slaves that were caught and "sent back" South were actually legitimately free, but no proof was required under this law) was brought before a judge, potentially to be sent South into slavery, that this judge should sentence them because it is their duty to follow the law? I would hope that no judge would do so!" Ok, now were getting interesting. At the time, it was in fact wrong moraly, but, constitutionaly legal. The remedy of course was the passing of the amendment banning slavery. This trumped the right of the states to exercise extradition. This is a pretty extreme example of course, I realize that. We don't have much in the way of LEGAL atrocities these days of that scale.

Hmm, I can see you have a strong opinion on the matter. ;P I used to think along the same lines as you, but you are making one assumption that I am not sure we can assume: that judges are abusing their authority by choosing not to apply a law that they think is unjust. Criminals ignore the law because they are selfish. Judges do not so much ignore the law as bend it where they deem that it should be bent. I don't know. I will have to look into it more myself, but I think that it is an interesting concept that people don't really put much thought into.

"Legislating from the bench" is a phrase that is tossed around that people do not really think about. No judge can "legislate" from the bench. The Supreme Court of the nation or of a state can declare a law unconstitutional, in which case it is overturned, but that is well within their power as dictated by law. An appellate court judge can interpret the law in any way they see fit. If they choose not to convict someone or to overturn a conviction, that is also well within their powers as directed by the law. They do not change the law in any way by refusing to sentence someone under it. It is simply a matter of...well...opinion, to be honest. Some judges believe their job is to apply the law as written. Some believe it is their job to apply JUSTICE. That does not mean that they change the law or even that they overstep their bounds, believe it or not. Oh, and judges are either elected or appointed by people that we elect, so they are just as much a representative as any other branch of government.