Judicial Activism Vs. Judicial Restraint

Judicial activists tend to view the constitution as a living document; they protect individuals’ rights and tend not to rely on historical events in their interpretation of the constitution (Law 220 text 2-27, 28). Dynamism, a

Gerald N. Rosenberg discusses the three views on the power of courts to cause social change, as well as the Miranda decision, in his popular and provoking book, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Rosenberg examines the underlying beliefs and theories for each of the views, as well as the problems one can encounter with both the constrained and dynamic views of the courts. It is from these problems that Rosenberg creates the Condition Dependent view of court power. To understand Rosenberg’s argument about the power of courts to cause change, it is important to understand the two other models of court power which Rosenberg synthesizes.

Jurisprudence explores what would be the simplest manifestation of law so as to create a civil society society where both individual liberty and normative goals are practiced. Should the the aim of law be primarily centered on the protection of individual liberty or, instead, the normative goals geared toward the benefit of of civil society? The laws in any society ought to not be centered on normative goals it ought to conjointly defend individual liberty.

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.

To be sure, modern laws are made to express the general will, a will that aims at the common good. This means that laws in most cases intend to protect every social member’s rights under the principle of justice and fairness. For telling examples one need to look no further than American judicial system. The access to the two courts systems, one federal court and one state court, provides citizens with the greatest potential to have their legal problems

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.

One of Nixon's campaign pledges was to appoint conservative judges to the Supreme Court to counter the perceived liberalism of the Warren Court. Supporters of this pledge claimed that the Warren Court's permissive rulings were eroding the moral base of the country and that their coddling of criminals had led to high crime rates and serious civil disturbances. Another complaint against the Warren Court was that it engaged in "judicial activism," meaning the intent of the court's decisions went beyond settling disputes between particular parties and into the arena of law-making. Racial desegregation and the reapportionment of voting districts are examples of areas in which the court's mandates affected not just the parties engaged in the suit, but literally every American.

The concept of Judicial Review is to review cases using the power of the courts over the actions of the executive and legislative branches to deem them invalid or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has a unique position because of its broad commitment to the American People and its Constitution. The Court's principles on judicial review are that The Constitution is the supreme law of the country, they have ultimate authority on constitutional matters, and they must vote against any law that clashes with the constitution. One of the most significant cases that brought forth such convictions was the case of Marbury vs. Madison in 1803. Which was a case that brought many complications because when Jefferson ordered his Secretary of State James

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.

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

There are oblivious things in life that restrict us, they are called rules. Nobody prefers to play a game by the guidelines, but there are reasons for them to exist. The purpose is to maintain the fairness of the game. And for that reason, we have professionals like, umpires, referees, and justices who help to maintain the integrity of these procedures. Nobody pays to watch the umpire in a ballgame, but they are needed to enforce the rules. Similarly, a justice is needed to aid a nation comply by the rules. Comparably, Chief Justice John Roberts (Roberts) of the United States Supreme Court is an outstanding example of that. In this article, the author explains why Roberts makes decisions the way that he does even though they are considered constraints by many. The decisions made by justices should be unbiased and non- sympathetic to a particular political party or else the political system will suffer.

Judicial Restraint- A legal term that describes a type of judicial interpretation that emphasizes the limited nature of the court's power. Judicial restraint asks judges to base their judicial decisions solely on the concept of stare decisis.

A supreme court with the power of judicial review ensures that all laws are constitutional. This is a significant factor for a country like Xlandia because they are not accustomed to constitutional rights. The Supreme Court will guide the Xlandians, showing them what is constitutional and not. We believe that the Supreme Court Judges should not run for their positions, rather be selected. An imperative sub-idea to the selection of the Supreme Court judges derives from the United States of America, where a group of potential Supreme Court judges is selected by the president, and the senate votes to approve the nominees. We believe this is not only a necessity for a land like Xlandia, but for countries all over the world. It is crucial that Judges are not influenced by the world of politics and spend all of their time solely on the law.As a group we agree that it is crucial to not only have one opinion on who is a part of the Supreme Court. This is why we have suggested that the president chooses a select few, and the senate votes from these chosen people. In addition to this, it is necessary for the Supreme Court to be independent and have the power of judicial review. Judicial Review is checking the constitutional validity of a legislative act. It is crucial for Xlandia to allow the Supreme Court to have complete power over judicial review (because they are not accustomed to constitutional rights). All

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.