The judicial system provides for both federal judges as well as activist judges. The two serves under the relevant circumstances based on the requirement and the nature of the case. In most cases, the federal judges handle almost all the mainstream cases while activist judges manage cases that are seen to be of flexible nature. Federal judges as defined by the judiciary guide are the ones that follow strictly the provisions in the constitution without considering any variables. They also are not interests in the change of trends surrounding their cases. The only reference they have while listening to case in the constitution and formal guidelines in the judicial system. On the other hand, the activist judges can be described as somewhat flexible. This can be attributed to their acknowledgement of the environmental issues. Such issues are simply the circumstances that surround the particular case being listened to. Issues such as technological advancement, deformation of change of ideologies and lifestyles experienced over time are considered during trial (Epstein, Lee, William Landes & Richard Posner, 2013). They also consider emerging trends and the unique characteristics of a specific case to try and understand the arguments of both the defense and the plaintiff. Therefore, federal judges should be allowed to be activist judges so as to extend their service further to more people. This is because it is paramount to note that the world has been changing very fast. These changes are highly influential over the lifestyles of people around the world. They provide unique scenarios whereby applying the federal law would be quite less resourceful. For example, when a judge is handling cases between parties from different states that have different laws concerning the subject matter, he or she is required to consider the diverse elements.
This takes him out of the constitutional comfort zone to give audience to some principles from the other state so as to balance out the case (Epstein, Lee & Andrew Martin, 2012). As much as the cases that involve or concern the constitution are purely listened to by federal judges, the same judges can as well handle cases that activist judges major on. This may ensure a broad knowledgeable judiciary with all rounded judges. Factors that may come into place when considering this argument are the economic ideas presented as well as the social environment rather that just focusing purely on the legal arguments.
Looking at a scenario in the early twentieth century whereby there was a clear distinction between the judicial functions of both the state governments as well as the national governments, it is evident that what the judiciary did was just to delegate some legal matters to the lower state courts. In the real sense, it was an empowerment that saw states enacts their local laws based on the emerging trends and the needs of a state in distinction from the other. This saw the passing of many state bills most of which were highly related, of reliant on activist judges. It is the suffice to claim that even the federal judges are well equipped to be activist judges and therefore there are no convincing grounds to deny them from carrying out both roles as long as their verdicts are within the constraints of the constitution of the united states of America (Cameron, Charles & Lewis Kornhauser, 2015). Injecting their vast knowledge and understanding of the federal laws would be an added advantage when sitting through trials as activist judges and it becomes easily to guarantee a well rounded verdict. Order Unique Answer Now