Preview

Judicial Activism

Good Essays
Open Document
Open Document
282 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Judicial Activism
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Self-Restraint
There are many differences between Judicial Activism and Judicial Self Restraint. Judicial Activism is the process by which judges take an active role in the governing process and Judicial Self Restraint is that Judges should not read their own philosophies into the constitution. Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court should be an active and creative partner with the legislative and executive branches in help shaping the government policy (Wasserman American Politics 138). The believers of this philosophical view of how our judicial branch suggests that the Supreme Court is more active and participates in molding the policies of American society. It can be argued that during the end of the Civil War and the "Separate but Equal" era, in cases such as the Brown v. Board of Education, Baker v. Carr, Missouri ex. Rel. Gaines v. Canada, and Sweatt v. Painter. The more recent, Bush v. Gore case is a good example of judicial activism.
Judicial Restraint is the idea that the Court should not place its views on other branches of the government or the states unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution (Wasserman American Politics 138). Judges, who believe in this form of our court system, say that a passive role of the court is preferred and that the other branches of the government should pave the way for policy and civil case changes. Throughout our history cases, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson, are also good examples of judicial restraint. The debate between judicial activism and judicial restraint began in the early days of the United States and still continues through the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Satisfactory Essays

    Judicial Independence Within a Political Process. Our judicial branch of government was designed not only to serve as a check on the power of the executive and legislative branches but also to be the final arbiter on disputes among states and between the states and the federal government. One important arbitration tool utilized by the judicial branch is judicial review. Judicial review is one of the U.S. Constitution’s most provocative features as it plays an important role in shaping the laws that impact our society. For this discussion, complete the following:…

    • 641 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Marbury Vs. Madison Case

    • 629 Words
    • 3 Pages

    . Judicial review is usually associated with the U.S Supreme Court and is processed by most state and federal courts of law in the United States. Judicial review also determines whether or not state statues and state executive acts are valid. Judicial review came to part in 1803 where the Marbury VS Madison case was going on it was the first time they ruled the congress unconstitutional. The exercise of judicial review is about the important rules of judicial self-restraint which also allows the burden of proof to be…

    • 629 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Framers of the United States Constitution vested immense power in the judicial branch of the government. Over the years, the highest Court of the land, the United States Supreme Court, has ruled on a multitude of cases, making new laws and setting precedence. The American people deem the judicial body supreme and, perhaps irrationally, trust they will interpret the Constitution more accurately and ethically compared to the executive and legislative branches. However, decisions of the courts are not purely legal, but rather a synthesis of attitudinal, legal, and strategic processes.…

    • 802 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    “Its is emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department, to say what the law is.” (Ducat, Craig Constitutional Interpretation p. 10) These seventeen words written two hundred years ago made the highest court in the United States supreme, and making it so, Chief Justice John Marshall’s words in that sentence continue to make an impact on every Supreme Court case thereafter. Justice Marshall laid the basic foundations to protect the Federal system that was established by the Constitution. In Marbury v. Madison, McCulloch v. Maryland, and Gibbons v. Ogden the Supreme Court maintained the United States as a federal state.…

    • 520 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In the early national period, the judiciary was the weakest of the three branches of government. When Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review in MarburyMadison by declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional, he greatly strengthened the judiciary. Even though the high court exercised this prerogative only one other time prior to the Civil War (Dred Scott v. Sanford), the establishment of judicial review made the judiciary more of an equal player with the executive and legislative branches.…

    • 325 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism in McDonald v. City of Chicago Judicial Restraint is when the Supreme Court restricts their powers to avoid making any changes to public policy, unless that policy is unconstitutional. When applying judicial restraint to cases, the courts stand by stare decisis (previous decisions of the court), uphold current law, and hold strictly to the text of the Constitution. They think that by only interpreting the constitution and not creating new laws, that they are preserving the laws that this country was founded on. Judicial activism is the opposite.…

    • 685 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The lower courts tell the high court what they have and that helps the Supreme Court decision more easier. Also all justices have oral arguments to hear one another's saying to making the decision. 5. Briefly discuss the cases of Plessy V. Ferguson (1896) and Brown V. Board of Education (1954). Explain why each is an example of “activism” or “restraint”…

    • 557 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    Judicial review gives the United States Supreme Court the power to review the legality of certain laws that were passed by the legislative branch (“Judicial Review”, n.d.). Using judicial review, the United States Supreme Court can determine the constitutionality of the particular law that was passed by Congress. If the United States Supreme Court finds that a law is unconstitutional, then that law is ineffective and cannot be enforced on the…

    • 499 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Marbury vs Madison

    • 1048 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Judicial review is the power of the courts to annul the acts of the executive and/or the legislative power where it finds them incompatible with a higher norm. Judicial review is an example of the functioning of separation of powers in a modern governmental system (where the judiciary is one of several branches of government).…

    • 1048 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    The judicial restraint theory is based off the idea that judges should limit the exercise of their own power. For example, it would make judges think before shooting down laws, just because they can, with the exception being that they are unconstitutional. The opposite of judicial restraint is judicial activism. Judicial activism is when judges make rulings based on politics or personal beliefs rather than the law itself. The main difference between these two philosophies is judicial restraint is a bit more ethical then judicial activism. Both Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor are minorities to the Supreme Court. However, they both have very different viewpoints when it comes to how their race and background play a role in their rulings.…

    • 339 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The power of judicial review has allowed the Supreme Court to protect civil liberties within America. Its involvement in civil rights issues have ranged from racial issues, to the rights of those accused and the reapportionment of electoral districts.…

    • 583 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The modern civil rights movement has been affected by three very important Supreme Court cases. The first infamous case was the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision which dreadfully took away the rights of African Americans. Then the case of Plessy v. Ferguson was held in 1896 which had a major impact on the civil rights movement. This case decided that African Americans were “separate but equal”. Then finally the last infamous case was the Board v. the Board of Education which overruled the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. These cases made a huge dent on the civil rights movement and the equality laws we have instilled today.…

    • 1025 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Another way in which Supreme Court decisions have impacted the issue of state power in relation to federal power is that federal judges, under the…

    • 870 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    I believe that the judicial restraint philosophy is more appropriate for federal judges to follow because, unlike judicial activism, it does not allow judges to expand vague Constitutional principles to fit their own viewpoint and principles. Judicial restraint does not authorize judges to interpret Constitutional texts and laws (conservative or liberal interpretation) in order to serve their own principles, policies, and considered estimates of the vital needs of contemporary society. The judicial restraint policy also ensures that separation of powers is applied justly so that different branches of government do not intervene with the power of the other branch. Also, because the Stare Decisis has a huge impact on future decisions and precedent,…

    • 249 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Judicial review has several meanings. It may refer to review by judges of governmental officials to determine whether the governmental officers are acting within their official capacity of exceeding their powers. Secondly there is a judicial review for the federal systems for policing the powers that have been distributed between the states and the central government. Third, there is the judicial review that may mean the power of the courts to invalidate or refuse to enforce statues, treaties, or executive orders that may violate or are unauthorized by the constitutional law.…

    • 1670 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Better Essays