High Level Of Judicial Activism

In The Gay Marriage Case, Obergefell v Hodges, the United States Supreme Court decided that a state may not prohibit same-sex marriage. Instead, it emphasized that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to the gay society through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment of the United States of America Constitution. The involved decision maker in the case was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who gave four primary reasons for his decision.

n response to the criticisms of those who are anti-judicial activism, “supporters of judicial activism say such activism through judicial review is necessary because it allows the courts to step in and fill gaps in the law where minorities are not protected because of political pressures and where politicians are afraid to legislate” . This raises the argument that judges and the judiciary play a balanced activist legislative role in such a way that it protects the rights of minorities from legislation or regulation imposed by the government. Within our democratic system, legislators will pay attention to what the majority wants and they will pursue public policies, which favour the majority. This leaves minority interests vulnerable to the legislations and regulations imposed by the government. By playing an active role, the judiciary ensures that the rights of the minorities are protected and that law does not contravene with the Charter of Human Rights and the Constitution of Canada. Through this kind of judicial activism, the courts strike a balance with the legislatures role. This is not to say that the judiciary takes on the role of policymaking and the legislature, but rather that both institutions embrace what is referred to as a “dialogue” where there is a balance between judicial decision-making and legislative-executive decision making . However, according to MacKay, “it is legitimate for the courts to engage in a form of judicial policy making so long as they do

The position of the Supreme Court in American society is quite simple: to interpret the Constitution and settle case disputes with the limitations that are binded by our law. While one perspective of the debate states that the court is unbending in their ability to make policy, while the other claims that the court breaks free from these limitations that are binded by our law and are politically dynamic in nature.These are known as The dynamic court and the constrained court are two alternative constructions of the role of U.S. courts in producing significant social reform (Rosenberg, 1991). The balance of these two views rely on the interaction between doctrinal,

James Obergefell and John Arthur married in Maryland in 2013. They lived in Ohio, which did not recognize same sex marriage. When John Arthur was diagnosed with ALS, the couple sued to have Obergefell’s name placed on the death certificate as a surviving spouse. The U.S. District Court overturned Ohio’s law banning same-sex marriage. The respondents appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On appeal, the decision was reversed; therefore, Arthur’s death certificate could not have Obergefall’s name on it. The case was brought to the Supreme Court and consolidated with three similar cases.

The Supreme Court often oversteps its perceived legal sovereignty when using judicial review. Article III of the Constitution solely vests the courts the “judicial power of the United States” never mentioning the power of judicial review. The judiciary’s duty, according to the law of the land, is “to interpret the laws, not scan the authority of the lawgiver” (Gibson, J.). The judiciary has not followed a strict interpretation of the constitution; rather, it has encroached on the power of the legislative branch and the sanctity of the separation of powers. If the Constitution “were to come into collision with an act of the legislature” (Gibson, J.), the Constitution would take precedent, but it is

In this case, Chief Justice Roberts determines the role of the Court in his opinion. Roberts argues that the point of the Court is not to say whether a law is good or bad, if the people do not like the bill, it is their fault. Roberts says, “the responsibility of this Court is to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down the acts of Congress that transgress those limits” (Roberts, pg 6). He also says, “we must determine whether the Constitution grants Congress powers it now asserts, but which many States and individuals believe it does not possess” (Roberts, pg 2). To do so, the Court must examine the limits on the Government’s power and their own limited role in “policing those boundaries” (2). In this case, Roberts says the Court must uphold its constitutionality and the fundamental will of the people.

It is easy to see that the legal factors involved are themselves not perfect. Since the Court is made up of human beings who are similarly imperfect, it is not implausible to suppose that the Court likewise

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

In the book Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court is Usurping the Power of Congress and the People, it sets out to identify how our government has changed and how these changes affect us and our laws. Pat Robertson wants the people to see how the Supreme Court is abusing power. Robertson shows how the federal judges are not only abusing their power but reaching beyond the power they are given. Thomas Jefferson once cautioned that, “to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions” are “a very dangerous doctrine indeed” and “one that would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy” (Robertson, Courting disaster: How the supreme court is usurping the power of Congress and the people, 2004).

The author’s audience and objective that the book Judicial Tyranny the New Kings of America is directed towards, is specifically those interested in learning about the fallacies within our court

Thus, when faced with arbitrary legislative action or inaction, judicial intervention “is not only appropriate but essential” to protect citizens’ constitutional rights. Furthermore, when the Court resolves constitutional questions that, for whatever reasons, elected representatives, cannot, its rulings can guide lower courts, legislators, and citizens concerning the scope of individual rights and permissibility of governmental conduct. When the Court applies the standing doctrine regardless of legislative inertia or entrenchment, some citizens are left with rights but no remedies and a government that is unaccountable and unresponsive to its citizens.

Constrained court is very strict when applying the U.S. constitution. There is a framework for systematically thinking about whether courts correct political failures. Using both Constrained and dynamic court views written by Rosenberg, both views can be viewed as hypothetical in certain aspects. Constrained court view is very clear straight to the point, having no wiggle room. An example of Constrained court view would be the seventh amendment stating that a person can't go to court unless the loss in a certain amount of money.

preferences of the dominant “national law making majority.” Robert Dahl chose to study these propositions by studying the Supreme Courts ability to invalidate Acts of Congress, concluding that only rarely will the court counter congress by striking legislation.

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.

Yet, we still have not fully explored the implications of this fact for the criminal law. In their attempts to explain the legal system at work, jurists expound the permissible limits of judicial law making.[5] Curiously, such explanatory exercises rarely employ illustrative examples from the criminal law. One possible reason for this is that there are constraints on judicial activism in the criminal law that are at work