Judicial Restraint Vs Judicial Activism

With the young nation of America entered into the 19th century, there were still major issues when it came to the balance of powers of the different government branches. The status of judicial review in the Supreme Court was never pressed upon or given any real structure to. The power of judicial review had appeared many times in history before the set up of the Supreme Court as, in England, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas Sir Edward Coke made the originated the idea . During the ruling of the case of Dr. Bonham’s Case, Coke found that the London College of Physicians had no right to levy fines against anyone who violated their rules. He would later go on to state that, “no person should be a judge in his own case” (Fletcher 12). The act was revolutionary at the time as it set the notion of that an official body of government was needed to give fair governess to the people. The idea would pop up once in a while in events such as the Constitutional Convention where records that were kept by the textbook University of Chicago Law Review saw that “13 out of the 15 delegates made statements that were in support of the idea of judicial review” (Prakash 123). The interesting part about the quote is that it states that the idea of judicial review was in place in America many years before the actually case of Marbury v. Madison. Even in the Federalist Papers No. 78 which was published in May 28, 1788, by Alexander Hamilton, went into lengthy discussion about judicial review. In

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.

Definition: the power vested in an appellate court to review/revise the decision of a lower court

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.

Together with, the Constitution of the United States likewise designed a strong government by establishing a national court system. This helped the government become more secure by having equal justice under law for every citizen including the president. In the document Powers of the Federal it presents the judicial powers and the supreme court. It states, “this branch interprets and ruled the actions of the other branches” (Document 2). This shows that the judicial branch has the ability to run each case according to the law it violated, without the influence of outside factors. Founding a national court system preserved and interpreted the law. Also, this demonstrates that having a court system help the government by equivalent laws enforce

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

In Judicial Tyranny the New Kings of America, Mark Sutherland proposes his ideas on how America is now being heavily influenced by tyrannical judges who pervert the constitution, to support their individual positions. According to Cambridge Dictionary, tyranny is defined as, “unlimited authority or use of power, or a government which exercises such power without any control or limits” (Cambridge 2015). There is, in our society, an over-reaching judicial branch ran by judges who are consumed by the idea that they are the resource which can establish or re-define the law. The three fallacies with our society is tyrannical judges who impose man’s law above sovereign law , citizens who don’t know about the un-constitutional rule that judges are imposing over the courts, and those who know about it but don’t know how to react when facing a tyrannical judge.

Congress is under the Legislative Branch, which gives it the power to bring laws into effect for the country. However, that power is shared with the Judiciary Branch (the Supreme Court) in the sense that this branch interprets laws and acts of Congress. The Supreme Court is able to, through judicial review, also void any laws implemented by Congress that are considered to be

Judicial Independence is fundamental to democracy, it serves as a guarantor of the rule of law and separation of power . However, nothing is perfect. There is some defect regarding to the judicial independence and solution must be made to curb the weakness.

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.

Judicial discretion was prevalent over the first half of the last three decades, but has been regulated by legislature since 1984. Discretion by definition is the authorization of deciding as one thinks fit, absolutely or within limits (Ntanda, 1999). Indeterminate sentencing, traditionally, has afforded judges considerable discretion over the resolve of criminal sentencing. “While such discretion theoretically allows judges to tailor sentences to the circumstances of individual crimes and criminals, thereby achieving a sort of ex post fairness, it also permits variation in sentences that may not be warranted by the observable facts of the case, reflecting instead the judge’s own preferences” (Miceli, 2008, p.207). The punishment

Supreme Court Justices are known for interpreting the Constitution. They are seen as leaders who know what is constitutional and what is not constitutional. Their interpretation of the Constitution is known as law throughout America, and not many people choose to oppose their decisions. Their word becomes the law, and their law reigns. When the justices are told to make a Constitutional decision they have one of two processes. They can either make a decisions from judicial restraint or judicial activism. While both methods are effective, judicial activism allows for a more fair decision.

I believe that the judicial branch has the most power because they have the power to settle disagreements about the meaning of laws and decide if laws and the president decides if laws or action.

The Supreme Court’s largest responsibility rests in its power of judicial review. The Supreme Court has the final say in all legal matters concerning the Constitution. The Supreme Court has the authority “to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court 's considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution” (The Court and Constitutional Interpretation n.p.). This means that anything passed by Congress, or mandated by the President can be struck down if the Court deems it unconstitutional. The Court can also strike down laws made by local and state governments if they violate the Constitution ("The Role of the Supreme Court” n.p.). Judicial review has been important in making sure that a citizen’s individual rights, stated in the Bill of Rights, are protected. There is no express consent written in the Constitution to grant the Court the power of judicial review. The idea of it, however, was around before the Constitution was written. Before the formal establishment of the Court in 1789, state courts had exercised it by overturning several laws passed by their legislatures that conflicted with their state constitutions (The Court and Constitutional Interpretation n.p.). It was not until the 1803 Supreme