Judicial Activism Research Paper

WHAT IS JUDICIAL ACTIVISM? Judicial activism has been described as “the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own visions regarding the needs of contemporary society.” Judicial activism is a power boundary in which government bodies have to work and their limits in which they can interfere with other government’s bodies. Most people would apply the rule of law which ensures governmental bodies work within their own offices and functions. Judicial activism raises a lot of questions because the U.K. doesn’t have a written constitution, so it brings about a wide range of questions to be answered and debated on.

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.

The American concept of democracy provides that no branch of government shall be more powerful and uncontrolled than the other branches (Lutzenberger, 2012). Judicial review is the power of the courts to oversee and prevent the legislative and executive branches from becoming abusive. Through this power, the courts interpret the meaning of laws and their application. They can invalidate a law, which they deem inconsistent with the US Constitution. They can also change the application of the law when interpreting it. Although the Constitution does not explicitly mention this power, the courts infer it from the provisions on the judicial branch in the Constitution. This inference was first made in 1803 in the Marbury v Madison case. The court declared the existence of the power and that it was for the exclusive use of the courts. They use it to interpret the intents of the Constitution on legal issues submitted to them for decision (Lutzenberger).

Judicial Review – the power of the Supreme Court to say whether the federal, state, or local law or government action goes against the Constitution.

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.

-The power of the judicial review is “A court’s power to review statutes to decide if they conform to the U.S. or state constitutions”. It is important to our legal system to have the power of the judicial review as a tool to the disposal of the courts when conflicts arise within the law or constitution.

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

When it comes to policymaking, the Supreme Court decides if laws are constitutional. Actions undertaken by the other branches of government recieve judgement through the power of judicial review. Ideology and judicial philosophies play an important role in judicial decision making, which in the end both informs and influences policy. Judicial decision making can be complex in ways that give certain weight toward factors dependent on the approach that justices take on the interpretation of specific laws and the Constitution.

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

To define Judicial Review, it is simply the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress that negatively conflict with the Constitution. This case creates the foundation of Judicial Review under Article III of the Constitution. To put into ramen terms, the Supreme Court announced that the courts may affirm an act of Congress null and void if it is at odds with the constitution. The case consisted of William Marbury, who just assumed form of justice of the peace for D.C. in the last hours of the Adam administration.

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.

Judges are seen as practicing judicial activists because their decisions seem to overturn policies made by legislatures or