Judicial Activism refers to the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution for specific issues that affect the rights of American citizens, for example the justices at the time of the Dred Scott court case in 1898 exercised judicial activism and decreed that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that divided the U.S. at the 36degree 30degree longitude latitude lines into free states and slave states to be unconstitutional because the justices said that congress did not have the authority to divide states into free or slave states. The Supreme Court also exercised Judicial Activism int he Brown VS. Board of Education landmark case in 1954 when Chief Justice Warren and his associate justices decreed that the separate but equal policy was unconstitutional which repealed the ruling in the Dred Scott case of 1898. The decision was landmark because the ruling was unanimous.
Judicial Restraint is the policy used by the Supreme Court Justices to prevent their personal feelings and opinions from deciding their rulings in court cases, For example the judges in Gideon v. Wainwright exercised judicial restraint in ruling that Gideon's rights to due process of law especially in the court appointing a lawyer in the case that the defendant can not afford one under the 5th amendment had in fact been violated.
Information was taken from American Government : Roots and Reform and also Gideon's Trumpet
Judicial activism is recognized as when judges tend to allow their own personal, emotional thoughts and beliefs interfere with their decision in a case. Often they allow their own idea of what is right and wrong prevail over a law, causing controversial outcomes. One such example is the Roe v. Wade case of 1973. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment included a woman's right to an abortion. In the process of this pro-choice decision, the Court overruled state and federal restrictions on abortions. The debate still goes on today as to what within the abortion realm should be considered. A candidate's stand on the pro-life/pro-choice is often a critical factor in how many votes he or she receives.
Judicial restraint is the opposite of judicial activism. This is the belief that judges should limit their power in a case to a minimum. Within judicial restraint, the belief is that the judges should abide solely by what is constitutionally the law, what is not the law, and nothing else. A landmark case concerning judicial restraint was Baker v. Carr of 1962. In a controversial decision, the Court decided that federal courts were allowed to intervene and decide reapportionment cases. The Court's main argument was that reapportionment was not a "political question" and so federal courts were able to intervene. This judicial restraint example was very controversial, as the case was reargued.
Judicial activism is a philosophy of judicial decision making that argues that judges should use their power BROADLY to further justice. These justices use a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Many of the Warren Court decisions such as Gideon, Brown and Miranda are considered activist decisions. Roe is considered activist because it is may on the right to privacy which is IMPLIED but not stated in the Constitution.
Judicial restraint is a philosophy of judicial decision making that argues courts should allow the decisions of the elected branches of government to stand. These judges practice a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
Judicial Activism refers to the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution for specific issues that affect the rights of American citizens, for example the justices at the time of the Dred Scott court case in 1898 exercised judicial activism and decreed that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 that divided the U.S. at the 36degree 30degree longitude latitude lines into free states and slave states to be unconstitutional because the justices said that congress did not have the authority to divide states into free or slave states. The Supreme Court also exercised Judicial Activism int he Brown VS. Board of Education landmark case in 1954 when Chief Justice Warren and his associate justices decreed that the separate but equal policy was unconstitutional which repealed the ruling in the Dred Scott case of 1898. The decision was landmark because the ruling was unanimous.
ReplyDeleteJudicial Restraint is the policy used by the Supreme Court Justices to prevent their personal feelings and opinions from deciding their rulings in court cases, For example the judges in Gideon v. Wainwright exercised judicial restraint in ruling that Gideon's rights to due process of law especially in the court appointing a lawyer in the case that the defendant can not afford one under the 5th amendment had in fact been violated.
Information was taken from American Government : Roots and Reform and also Gideon's Trumpet
Judicial activism is recognized as when judges tend to allow their own personal, emotional thoughts and beliefs interfere with their decision in a case. Often they allow their own idea of what is right and wrong prevail over a law, causing controversial outcomes. One such example is the Roe v. Wade case of 1973. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment included a woman's right to an abortion. In the process of this pro-choice decision, the Court overruled state and federal restrictions on abortions. The debate still goes on today as to what within the abortion realm should be considered. A candidate's stand on the pro-life/pro-choice is often a critical factor in how many votes he or she receives.
ReplyDeleteJudicial restraint is the opposite of judicial activism. This is the belief that judges should limit their power in a case to a minimum. Within judicial restraint, the belief is that the judges should abide solely by what is constitutionally the law, what is not the law, and nothing else. A landmark case concerning judicial restraint was Baker v. Carr of 1962. In a controversial decision, the Court decided that federal courts were allowed to intervene and decide reapportionment cases. The Court's main argument was that reapportionment was not a "political question" and so federal courts were able to intervene. This judicial restraint example was very controversial, as the case was reargued.
Judicial activism is a philosophy of judicial decision making that argues that judges should use their power BROADLY to further justice. These justices use a loose interpretation of the Constitution. Many of the Warren Court decisions such as Gideon, Brown and Miranda are considered activist decisions. Roe is considered activist because it is may on the right to privacy which is IMPLIED but not stated in the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteJudicial restraint is a philosophy of judicial decision making that argues courts should allow the decisions of the elected branches of government to stand. These judges practice a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
wrong. Gideon v Wainwright is Judicial Activism because they used personal opinion and it over-ruled Betts v. Brady and Powell v. Alabama
ReplyDelete