Goldman, S. K., & Mutz, D. C. (2007).

Politicizing the Courts: Attacking "Activist Judges" in the Debate Over Election Referenda on Gay Marriage. Conference Papers -American Political Science Association, 1-32. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
In this article, the researchers from the University of Pennsylvania analyze whether or not the push from the judicial bench for legalizing gay marriage is due to judges becoming activists, and whether or not the anti-activist ideologies connected with this issue is an undercover means of those involved to express their anit-gay sentiments. One of the principal authors of this project, Dr. Seth K. Goldman is a post doctoral fellow at the University of Pennsylvania, and has an extensive publishing background in the field of equality, gender rights, and cultural behavior. Dr. Diana Mutz is the Samuel Stouffer Proffessor of Communication and Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Mutz is also the University of Pennsylvania Director of the

Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics, Annenberg Public Policy Center. The methodology used was a panel sample in order to gain information on public perceptions around gay marriage in various political districts.

Rosenberg, D., Taylor Jr., S., Sloan, C., Bailey, H., & Skipp, C. (2005). THE WAR ON JUDGES. Newsweek, 145(17), 22-26. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
The researchers in this article perform an analysis around the former vacancies, and even possible future openings on the supreme court. According to the research, the authors suggest that some of the bickering and fighting amongst the various political factions was due to the opening that occurred at that time on the Supreme Court, and who was going to get that seat. Moreover, some of the fears were that the current Supreme Court is too activist, meaning that the current court implements their current ideologies, perceptions, and political views into their decision making; rather than interpreting the constitution based on the time that they are living in. In the words of my first political science professor, "the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says"; meaning that they "tend" to have final determination on the constitutionality of court proceedings and hearings that come before them. The researchers in this article are contributors to Newsweek magazine.

Bork, R. H. (2003). Coercing Virtue. Institute of Public Affairs Review, 55(3), 21-22. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
The researchers in this article delve straight into the heart of the notion of activist judges and exerting their opinions into their rulings and interpretation of law. Unlike the previous authors, the writer of this article calls this process of ruling, "judicial imperialsim", where similar to imperialistic regimes, the judge acts autonomously as if they do not have anyone to balance their power. Robert Bork is a legal scholar that's typically read from a more conservative point of view due to his belief in "originalism", which is a notion that the country should get back to the "original" meaning of the constitution. However, if that were correct, then many groups who find constitutional protection would lose out because the founding fathers did not predict the advent of "technology", or "civil rights" for that matter. According to the author, activism from the bench challenges the democratic process. However, many of the authors listed above would disagree, as it is the notion of challenging the democratic process that leads to more freedom, rather than a constricted means of living.

Grant, J. (2010). The Rise of Juristocracy. Wilson Quarterly, 34(2), 16-22. Retrieved from EBSCOhost
This article presents an overview of judicial history in regards to activism from the courts. The author discusses some of the fundamental notions of "originalism" as suggested by Bork in the previous article, accept he does not indicate that he believes in that principle. One of the initial premises of the author is that the courts have a big job in determining the "rights" and "due's" of

Americans, and he cites that this newly found, "juristocracy" has been on the scene since the advent of World War 2. Furthermore, the author suggests that through the reinterpretation of "rights", which is similar to Bork's article, judicial activism rears its head in the judicial process and in the lives of the average citizen. The author of this article is a writer and contributes widely to both American and Australian legal publications and news outlets.

Moens, G. A., & Mumford, M. R. (1998). Judicial activism and common sense: An American perspective. Australia & World Affairs, (38), 52. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
In this article, the author discusses the idea of judicial restraint in regards to judicial activism. The author also discusses the notion of a judges ability to take a case under "judicial review", meaning that they could take a case under review, and depending on if their case doesn't get overturned, change a rule of law based on their decision. The lead author of this article, Dr. Moens, is dean of law at Mudock School of Law in Australia, and Mr. Mumford practices law and is licensed in the state of California.

Ogletree Jr., C. J. (2002). Judicial Activism or Judicial Necessity: The D.C. District Court's Criminal Justice Legacy. Georgetown Law Journal, 90(3), 685. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
The arthor of this article leans toward the opposite end of the political spectrum in comparison to both Grant and Bork. Professor Olgetree examines in this article the pre-civil rights era of the 1950's surrounding the Washington D.C. district court. Professor Olgatree is the Director of the Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard School of Law, and is a Professor of Law at Harvard as well. In regards to some of the aformentioned authors, Professor Ogletree suggests in this article that the specific role of the jurists is not rigid, and has a more fluid purpose. As a result, the judicial branch could participate in judicial decision-making that may apear contrary to the popular consent because there are many times at which the tyranny of the majority violates the rights of the minority. In other words, this author suggests that judicial activism is only a negative notion when it contradicts the ideology of the person accusing the judicial of being activist when it's being discussed.

Lawler, P. (2006). TOWARD A CONSISTENT ETHIC OF JUDICIAL RESTRAINT. Society, 43(5), 51-58. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
This article highlights some of the ideas that Professor Ogletree insisted on by examining the roles yet again of the judciary, particularly during the previous Presidential administration. According to the author, the judiciary power is checked, and sometimes driven by the executive branch through the role of the president. For example, the president appoints nominations to the Supreme Court, although that individual must be confirmed by the legislative branch (Senate). However, with this power, and other appointees to lesser courts, but still powerful, the president could use their power to promote their political ideology, and limit or enhance the amount of activism that occurs from the bench. Therefore in some administrations their appears to be more liberty or either more restraint felt by the public because sometimes when they promote a president, they are not privy to the idea that they may be possibly giving up some of their liberties due to some of the decisions that president may make. Dr. Lawler is the Dana professor of Government at Berry College.

Walker, C. (2009). Making Judicial Activism "Count". Conference Papers -- Southern Political Science Association, 1. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
In this article, the author focuses his attention on the scholarly feud between academics from both the political and legal spectrum on a more clear and conscise definition of judicial activism as does some of the other authors listed. However, where Professor Walker differs is that she suggests that there are many forms and levels of court proceedings at which judicial activism could take place. In other words, judicial activism isn't restricted to just a judge issuing a ruling that goes against the societal mood on that issue. Professor Walker is a professor at Georgia

State University in Atlanta, Ga with research interests in American Government, Public Law and Research Methodology.

Bryden, D. P. (1993). A conservative case for judicial activism. Public Interest, (111), 7285. Retrieved from EBSCOhost.
This article distinguishes itself from some of the current writings on judicial activism in that David Bryden simplifies some of the mysteries around what has become a common colloquialism in this debate, "the courts". The author of the article suggests that the notion of "the courts" isn't sufficient when referring to discussions on judicial activism in that it labels a large notion of jurists without singling out specific jurists that practicing judicial policy making. In other words, the courts do not form opinions, but rather individuals on the court do so. David Bryden also suggests, as does Dr. Lawler, and Professor Ogletree that judicial activism is only favored by those that are more liberal because those actions designated, "activist" are in favor of the more liberal agenda, and if those activist roles were in regards to restriction, or conservative tendencies, then judicial activism would share the same sentiments regardless of what ideology you were affiliated with. David Bryden is the Gray, Plant, Mooty and Bennett Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota.