Judicial Power And Activism Paper
Judicial Power and Activism
Amanda Smith
Southern New Hampshire University
Courts and the Judicial Process
JUS-602-Q2714 Courts and Judicial Process 15TW2
Jennifer Schneider
December 14, 2014
Abstract
In this paper I will discuss Texas v. Hopwood, 518 U.S. 1033 (1996), Affirmative Action, the 14th Amendment in relation to how the judicial activism comes back to questions of judicial power.
Judicial Power and Activism
Let me first point out that no one man is better than the other. Human life has no color only skin in its various shades. The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution at times is interpreted out of the original context that it was intended in my opinion. Despite the students in this law suit are …show more content…
This is definitely a big issue in making judicial rulings with constitutionality involved and especially the continued existence of separation of powers. Affirmative action is a policy in place often used by educational intuitions as well as employers with the intent of giving preference or equal access to employment and or education to members in certain minority groups deemed to have or had been discriminated against (ex. African-Americans, Hispanics, Women). This policy was in place with the enactment of Executive Order 10925, by President John F. Kennedy March 6, …show more content…
Despite the obvious that justices chief function is to interpret the law this decision rewrote by overturn Bakke. Judicial activities comes back to judicial power for justices are in the position to use jurisdiction, Certiorari, as well as Injunctive authority to make decision with in turn effect public policy for case law is a form of primary authority. I could see how it appears that this decision was judicial activism. Generally speaking precedent weighs heavily in deciding cases of similar issues/questions of law presented. Stare decisis is typically followed with no deviance from the way the statue is interpreted however, in this case it seems that the Justice Ginsburg decided on some other factors besides the
Amanda Smith
Southern New Hampshire University
Courts and the Judicial Process
JUS-602-Q2714 Courts and Judicial Process 15TW2
Jennifer Schneider
December 14, 2014
Abstract
In this paper I will discuss Texas v. Hopwood, 518 U.S. 1033 (1996), Affirmative Action, the 14th Amendment in relation to how the judicial activism comes back to questions of judicial power.
Judicial Power and Activism
Let me first point out that no one man is better than the other. Human life has no color only skin in its various shades. The Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution at times is interpreted out of the original context that it was intended in my opinion. Despite the students in this law suit are …show more content…
This is definitely a big issue in making judicial rulings with constitutionality involved and especially the continued existence of separation of powers. Affirmative action is a policy in place often used by educational intuitions as well as employers with the intent of giving preference or equal access to employment and or education to members in certain minority groups deemed to have or had been discriminated against (ex. African-Americans, Hispanics, Women). This policy was in place with the enactment of Executive Order 10925, by President John F. Kennedy March 6, …show more content…
Despite the obvious that justices chief function is to interpret the law this decision rewrote by overturn Bakke. Judicial activities comes back to judicial power for justices are in the position to use jurisdiction, Certiorari, as well as Injunctive authority to make decision with in turn effect public policy for case law is a form of primary authority. I could see how it appears that this decision was judicial activism. Generally speaking precedent weighs heavily in deciding cases of similar issues/questions of law presented. Stare decisis is typically followed with no deviance from the way the statue is interpreted however, in this case it seems that the Justice Ginsburg decided on some other factors besides the