In his new study of the American judicial system Sterling Harwood, J.D., Professor of Philosophy at San Jose State University, scrutinizes the particular legal, moral and philosophical claims about judicial activism.

This study explores the various arguments in favor and against activism offered in leading theories, including treatment of the democratic framework of courts, of the importance of predecent or stare decisis in judicial decision, and of the justification of activism by procedural due process. Reconsidering these same criticisms passivists make about activism, Harwood builds a tightly-argued case in favor of activism.

Complemented with tables of judges (including John Austin) and judicial decisions, Judicial Activism is a work rich in thought-provoking arguments that concern not only judges, but the entire legal and political community as well.