The Pros And Cons Of Judicial Bearing

Judicial scrutiny is often used as a form of protection for the rights of discrete and insular minorities, against more or less permanent majorities. Justices that practice strict scrutiny agreed that when regulating laws of economic or non-fundamental rights, the standard of mere reasonableness is justified. Justices using strict scrutiny often follow a certain tripartite test to ensure that the process is done smoothly, which are: “Where legislation directly abridges a preferred freedom, the usual presumption of constitutionality is reversed; that is, the statute or other enactment is assumed to be unconstitutional, and this presumption can be overcome only when the government has successfully discharged its burden of proof,” “The government must show that the exercise of the fundamental right in question constitutes ‘a clear and present danger’ or advances ‘a compelling interest,’” and “The legislation must be drawn in such a way as to present a precisely tailored response to the problem and not burden basic liberties by its over breadth; that means, the policy adopted by the government must constitute the least restrictive alternative.” The legislations directly interfering with liberties fundamental to a democratic system must clear a higher hurdle.
The problem of minorities in the United States requires more
Fundamental rights are rights possessed by individuals without measuring their self-worth. One’s freedom should not be justified based on an individual’s usefulness to the democratic process because it contradicts with our belief that a free society is one where individuals are ends in themselves and not necessarily a means to an end. Citizens of the United States are entitled to their constitutional rights for the simple fact that they are persons, not that they are members of a specific racial