Advantages Of Judicial Activism

In many situations Judiciary was the first who recognized the incoming “wind of change” and according to that made many landmark decisions in the area of civil rights and liberties. That shows importance of Judiciary, but it does not mean that Judiciary is stronger than other two branches. For each landmark decision in the area of civil rights the Court waited a long time before finally decided to change interpretation of the law (more than 100 years for full incorporation of the Bill of Rights into XIV amendment). Basically when the public began to change opinion the Court did too. For instance in the 1954 when was the case Brown v. Board of Education, public opinion was considerably different from 1896 and the case Plessy v. Ferguson.

Judicial Activism: An approach to the law where the judiciary feel less constrained by precedents and interpret the law with the aim of pursuing social change. Evidence would be if the court overturned past decisions, legislation or executive actions in order to promote conservative or liberal objectives.

a. Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy that calls for the court to play an active role in determining national policies and to apply the Constitution to the social and political questions of their present day.

This allows the executive branch to determine the makeup of the judiciary branch, and through it exercise power over the legislative branch. Because the men and women appointed to the Supreme Court remain there for life, with no public elections to possibly remove them, a president can affect politics through his choice of appointees for decades after his time in office has ended (Romance, July 29). But this, too, is limited by the Congress as the president’s judicial appointments are subject to the consent of the Senate (Landy and Milkis, 289).

The establishment of one of the most influential powers of the Supreme Court--the power of judicial review-- and the development of the judicial branch can be attributed to Marshall’s insightful interpretation of the Constitution ("The Marshall Court”).

In this chapter, the question of if judicial independence is being undermined is asked. Attacks upon activist judges is a recurring theme in the United States. Various judges are attacked across the state for the decisions they make. In an adversary system, a judge’s decision often fails to find favor with the losing party. These losing parties normally label the judge as and “activist”. This means that the judge had made an unpopular opinion. There has been many examples of judges being subject to the attacks such as when Justice Penny White was voted off the bench because she voted in a death penalty case to grant the defendant more leeway. These attacks on judges can have a harsh impact on the judicial independence. The American Judicature

There are times when areas of government are operating improperly and the judiciary must step in to be able to return it to order. These instances are often met with controversy as people are dismayed by the branch overstepping its traditional boundaries. Despite this discomfort, it is always better that constitutionality and order be reinstated than people gain comfort in their unlawful actions and decisions. Examples of these instances of judges stepping forward to get these areas back on the correct path include the Boston busing situation and the reforms in the Oakland Police Department.

Judicial independence is based on the freedom of the judiciary from the interference by the two by the two other branches of government: the executive and legislature, in its activities, as well as freedom from pressure exerted by the media or public opinion. Judicial neutrality is the absence of bias in the judiciary for example; religious, social, gender, political or racial bias. UK judges are generally seen to possess both independent and neutral qualities. They are independent and neutral to a large extent as the Constitutional Reform Act in 2005 has increased their independence and existing measures such as security of their job and salary, as well as sub judice rule, the growth of judicial review and increased European influence maintains existing independence. Neutrality is increasing the judiciary as its social representation is improving and the biased attitudes of judges towards national security have been changing. However independence and neutrality is still limited as there have been biased judgements against certain social groups, biased judgments in favour of national

power to make laws and set policies which rightfully belongs to the Congress and state legislatures. They state that Justices exceed their authorized powers of judicial review

The first part of this essay will provide a brief insight into the history of the Supreme Court, the original intentions of the founding fathers and a discussion on how they idealized the relationship between politics and the law. The second section will explore how the contemporary process to which judges are appointed has become significantly influenced by politics. The third section will discuss how the Supreme Court overstepped its boundaries on constitutional interpretation in the Roe v. Wade case. The final section will unpack the importance of partisanship and ideological politics and discuss how it impacts the function of the Justices in their

The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the

Judicial Activism- When judges deny legislators or the executive the power to do something unconstitutional.

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.

The US Supreme Court has a number of powers. These include the power to declare acts of Congress, the executive or state legislatures unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. The supreme court justices are also given the power to interpret the constitution when making decisions, again, through their power of judicial review. It is arguable that it is essential for the supreme court to have such powers in order to allow the American democracy to flourish. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the supreme court holds too much power for an unelected body, thus hindering democracy.

For instance, if the parliament, acting on public opinion, was to make a law severely curbing the rights of some minority, the supreme court has the right to struck it down as unconstitutional, irrespective of the public support behind that law. This principle takes into account the notion that popular sentiments should not always be reflected in state policies, especially when they contradict the law. The process of judicial elections, however, is entirely based on public support as the basic legitimizing criteria for the justice system and fails to consider the fallibility of popular opinions. And, when judges are elected to their offices, the cannot work irrespective of public opinion which helped them gain their seat in the bench. Therefore, election of judges contradicts the basic principles of democracy as well as independence of the judiciary.