Jackson/Verbonceur
In the current cultural moment, the role of the Supreme Court is a hotly contested issue, particularly as it comes to the rise of judicial activism. Judicial activism is the practice in the judiciary of protecting and expanding individual rights.
The Jackson/Verbonceur views the United States Constitution as the highest legal authority in the land, but it also recognizes that the Constitution needs further support in other ways to uphold justice. Throughout history, the Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in confronting moral failings within the government’s application of the Constitution. Landmark decisions—such as those addressing segregation, voting rights, and equality—have often relied on a moral reading of the law rather than a strictly literal one. We believe this moral dimension is not just sentimental, but essential to the Court’s proceedings.
In this light, the judiciary must not limit itself to mechanical interpretations of the law. Instead, judges should embrace a more holistic approach, interpreting the Constitution not solely through legal precedent, but also considering a lens of morality. This view supports that the courts have a responsibility to confront laws or practices that, while legally grounded, produce unjust outcomes. The Court’s role in utilizing judicial activism, therefore, is not only legal but also ethical—to ensure that the government lives up to the ideals enshrined in the Constitution through a moralistic standard.
Because of this, the Jackson/Verboncoeur ticket believes the Supreme Court should have every right to take a more active stance in checking the powers of both federal and state governments. When legislatures fail to protect individual freedoms or rely on outdated precedents that harm marginalized communities, the Court must be willing to intervene. However, there must be a delicate balancing act in the effort to check other branches' powers’ without granting the court supreme authority. The failure to do so would amount to a betrayal of the Constitution’s deeper promise of liberty and equality for all. Judicial activism—not in the sense of partisan overreach, but in the defense of moral justice—is a necessary tool in a functioning democracy. Cases like Brown vs Board of Education, which abolished racial segregation in the school system, set a precedent that exemplifies the moral duty of the Court.
Ultimately, the Jackson/Verboncoeur ticket recognizes that judges must strive to be arbiters of existing law first, but serve a secondary role as moral agents. These moral agents counterbalancing governmental overreach. This requires courage, wisdom, and personal discernment in identifying when laws, though technically constitutional, produce morally indefensible outcomes. By embracing this responsibility, the Supreme Court can uphold not just the letter of the law, but its spirit—ensuring that the nation remains aligned with its highest ideals. In conclusion, judicial activism is a necessary tool but one that must be used with careful precision.