judicial activism

Judicial Activism And Judicial Restraint

Description: The article is related to judicial activism. The author mainly interprets a question about what kind of role the courts play, judicial activism or judicial restraint. He has a specific debate about this question.

Here’s a topic of contention and disagreement in the United States. It comes to a question, how much power should the courts have in policy making. If you believe that the court should have a lot of power, be policy makers and be the guardians of people’s liberties and rights, then you believe in judicial activism.

If you believe that the courts are a passive body which only interprets the law and don’t seek out any political change, they’re impartial to the whims of politics, then you might believe in judicial restraint. So let’s look at these two ideas more closely.

so judicial activism is a philosophy that the court should take an active role in solving social economic and political problems, that they are going out and looking at in justices, and not just soberly interpreting the law as it stands but actually making law to fix and solve these problems, good, Court should uphold the Guardian ethic they act as guardians of the people,

Here are some examples of judicial restraint and some of these you probably agree with completely. Requiring States to provide legal aid for the poor, requiring modernization of prisons, requiring States to educate undocumented aliens, establishing one-man one-vote principle of reapportionment, striking down the gun-free school zones Act, striking down the line-item veto, striking down the Florida recount of Bush v Gore, striking down the state death penalties for mentally handicapped persons.

So these are examples of the courts taking an active role in changing policies at the state and at the federal level. They’re being activists on reforming policies, because they don’t think that the legislature, the executive of states or the federal government is doing a very good job.They’re coming in and saying, I know the two elected branches of the government, I want this policy to be this way. We’re saying no, you can’t have the policy that way.

The opposite of that is judicial restraint. The court should allow States and other two branches of the federal government to solve these problems, and they should stay clear when the two other branches of government or the states say that they want a policy. The Supreme Court should look at that policy and say OK.

If the Constitution with other laws are in conflict, it will be the job of the other two branches or the states to pass this law. Federal courts should act in situations that refer to clear constitutional question, courts should merely interpret rather than make clauses. It suggests that courts should follow the original intent of the founders and decide cases based on what the founders want or what the founders intend rather than expanding the powers of the government.

Now there are certain constraints or restraints on the power of the judiciary. Whether they want to be activists or not, courts can make decisions to change society, but it’s left up to others to enforce it, the courts can not reach out and take a case, they must wait for a case to get into the judicial process.The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can’t open up a newspaper and see something that the Chief Justice doesn’t like.

We’re going to fix this. Piko has to become a judicial issue before the courts can take it on and try to to rule on it. The president appoints judges, Congress confirms judges, judges can be impeached and removed.

There’s an increasing number of Courts that grow the power of the judiciary. Passing constitutional amendments can change decisions of Courts. They hope that the Supreme Court will change his mind, determine the jurisdiction of Courts and what kind of cases they can have.

Another restriction on court are decisions that has been set before. It’s difficult to overturn precedents that courts rely strongly. Existing laws restricts the Supreme Court, they must work within the Constitution. How about public opinion? Does public opinion influence the court?

The supreme court probably does not follow election returns. In the short term, the justices are appointed by previous presidents. However, the court should reflect people’s public opinion, because the justices are appointed by the President, they’re confirmed by the Senate, and the the people’s public opinion makes its way.

Write A Comment