Judicial Activism Versus Judicial Restraint

Judicial Activism Vs. Judicial Restraint The debate between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint really grabbed my attention. Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint are two different ways to interpret the constitution and its laws. Both interpretations have their own strengths and weaknesses, which is why it is so hard to come to a final decision of which is acceptable and which is not (in most cases). While at the debate I didn’t realize how many cases have boiled down to these two concepts. There have been many cases ended up being decided by both interpretations. I believe Judicial Activism should be removed from the Supreme Court. The Original definition of Judicial Activism is defined as a philosophy of judicial decision- making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policies, among other factors, to guide their decisions. To me this is basically an important decision biased due to emotions. Which I believe is totally unfair and unconstitutional. There are many cases where people have argued that the jurors/judges have been too activist in their decisions and used too much of their personal views in deciding a case. An example of this would be Roe Vs Wade, where abortion was the concerned cause. The Supreme Court ruled that abortion must be legal to protect the women’s health and privacy. So with that being the case, the Judge eventually ruled that it was unconstitutional for the government or anyone else to intervene in someone else’s personal affairs or problems. Or even a better example the Lawrence vs. Texas case where the Supreme Court ruled that consensual homosexual sex was legal and protected by the constitution and is considered to be personal liberty. Judicial Restraint on the other hand is not too much of a good thing to me either, but I feel that it is an interpretation of the law that is easier to come by. The original definition of judicial restraint is defined as a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages