Judges, are they politicians in disguise? (40)
US Supreme Court justices are politicians in disguise, discuss.
The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution and to apply these interpretations to legislation that has been made by Congress as to avoid them from making unconstitutional law. In doing so this is called judicial review in which the Supreme Court takes an active role in intervening in politics. If a law is suggested as being unconstitutional the Supreme Court will either accept or decline and if they accept, this will result in the judiciary then looking at the case and determining whether or not the accusation is true or if the question is entitled to make a claim. In some instances this can be taken too far by the court and they can intervene and end up making a substantial decision on some very controversial issues which would be deemed as unfair by one of the parties, other times their intervention is adequate and justified. I will argue that they are not politically neutral due to the appointment process; however I think they are less like politicians in disguise and more just actively doing their job and interpreting the constitution as how it is supposed to be.
Those who claim the Supreme Court is too politically active object to judicial activism; however there are two different types of judicial activism, there is liberal and conservative activism, they both have a different style of how the supreme court should be run, so liberal activism being actively interpreting the constitution, whereas conservative activism is the upholding of vested interests.
There are many examples of court intervention, known as judicial activism. This is when the Supreme Court becomes active in political decisions which have been made; there is one example of a history changing decision which has been made which is probably the best example when the Supreme Court intervened too much in the Bush vs Gore 2000 election. The Supreme Court said that there was to be no recount and that the
The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution and to apply these interpretations to legislation that has been made by Congress as to avoid them from making unconstitutional law. In doing so this is called judicial review in which the Supreme Court takes an active role in intervening in politics. If a law is suggested as being unconstitutional the Supreme Court will either accept or decline and if they accept, this will result in the judiciary then looking at the case and determining whether or not the accusation is true or if the question is entitled to make a claim. In some instances this can be taken too far by the court and they can intervene and end up making a substantial decision on some very controversial issues which would be deemed as unfair by one of the parties, other times their intervention is adequate and justified. I will argue that they are not politically neutral due to the appointment process; however I think they are less like politicians in disguise and more just actively doing their job and interpreting the constitution as how it is supposed to be.
Those who claim the Supreme Court is too politically active object to judicial activism; however there are two different types of judicial activism, there is liberal and conservative activism, they both have a different style of how the supreme court should be run, so liberal activism being actively interpreting the constitution, whereas conservative activism is the upholding of vested interests.
There are many examples of court intervention, known as judicial activism. This is when the Supreme Court becomes active in political decisions which have been made; there is one example of a history changing decision which has been made which is probably the best example when the Supreme Court intervened too much in the Bush vs Gore 2000 election. The Supreme Court said that there was to be no recount and that the