Consitutional Review

A. Traditional theories of the judicial review hold that neutral or principled grounds are the only legitimate bases for judicial decisions and reject political moves in judicial decisions-making. Do you believe this is true? Do you see principled vs. political motives in important U.S. Supreme court constitutional decisions in which overturn laws passed by legislatures(such as restrictions on gun ownership or marijuana use?

I do believe this is true. Judicial decisions reject political motives in judicial making because the court operated on judicial impartiality and judicial independence which holds the court and judges to law without being under the influence of governmental or political agencies. Judicial independence is most important for maintain individuals rights for all citizens. The Supreme Court does not like to overturn established laws of congress but in turn will be able to overturn state rights principles.

B. Interestingly those behind high profile cases brought to the court are often those who seek political agendas. In Korea they defer to the Korean constitutional court want a political deadlock is reached and they were unwilling or unable to settle contentious public deputes in the legislature. Politicians may invite judicial intervention deliberately to avoid public criticism of their incapability of action and to divert responsibility to the court. Do you think that this is true in the United States? If so can you provide an example?

Politicians do invite judicial intervention deliberately to avoid public criticism of their incapability of action to divert responsibility to the court, to remove the heat of them. Most cases that have to deal with civil rights and abortions are left to the court system as well as topics on immigration.

C. When people cannot get decisive action from their political leaders they are likely to turn to courts and judges instead. That is when any political group cannot gain electoral support