"Judges need to restrict themselves to the proper resolution of the case before them. They need to avoid the temptation to set broad policy"
About this Quote
In this quote, Mike DeWine stresses the important function that judges play in keeping the stability of the judicial system by focusing strictly on the particular cases they are tasked with adjudicating. The statement is essentially a call to action for judges to work out judicial restraint and avoid exceeding their boundaries by participating in activities that are more properly within the province of the legal or executive branches of government.
DeWine underscores the importance of judges adhering to the principle of "narrow tailoring" in their rulings. This implies that judges should focus on the truths and legal problems important to the specific case at hand. By doing so, they respect the separation of powers, a fundamental aspect of democratic governance that makes sure a system of checks and balances amongst the branches. Judicial overreach, where judges make sweeping or generalized policy declarations, could disrupt this balance by encroaching on the responsibilities and functions of the elected branches.
Furthermore, DeWine's declaration recommends an awareness of the potential attraction for judges to use their judgments as platforms to influence broader social or political modifications. While some may see the judiciary as a car for social modification, DeWine's viewpoint insists on restraint, arguing that such aspirations need to be pursued through the legal process, where chosen agents debate, craft, and implement policy reflecting the will of the electorate.
In addition, by warning against the temptation to set broad policy, DeWine highlights the possible danger of judicial advocacy, where judges may allow personal beliefs or ideologies to shape their choices. Such actions could undermine public self-confidence in the judiciary as an impartial arbiter of justice, causing perceptions of bias.
In amount, DeWine's quote reflects a philosophy of judicial restraint that focuses on case-specific decision-making, regard for the separation of powers, and adherence to legal precedents, therefore maintaining the judiciary's function as a neutral interpreter of the law instead of an active individual in policymaking.
