Justice Term Activism

The role of the Judicial Branch of the United States has been the most dynamic throughout the Nation’s history. By adopting the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court established its position as being arguably the most powerful branch of Federal Government. However, this also made the Judiciary’s role the most controversial. Should the Court be required to interpret the constitution strictly through the language it contains? Does the Court have the right to overturn morals legislation? Through analyzing court cases like Lawrence v. Texas, one can gain insight on the role of the Supreme Court and how it fits within the confines of the United States Government.

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

Activist are those people who are attracted by new challenges and experiences, they don't mind trying anything at least once and they put themselves in action

Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposing philosophies when it comes to the Supreme Court justices' interpretations of the United States Constitution; justices appointed by the President to the Supreme Court serve for life,and thus whose decisions shape the lives of "We the people" for a long time to come.

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.

Jan Greenburg is a Legal Communicator for the ABC news. In this book she tells explains about nine different interviews she has had with high political leaders. The leaders range from Justices to the white house. This book basically takes the outside and inside view of how the court has changed over time. Court has changed over time with mainly communal problems such as: faith, ethnicity and illegal processes. Jan talks about how some of the court has basically used itself to gain power through these communal problems. This is really useful when it comes down to it, because it lets the reader realize that the court does not always give proper justice. There are numerous conflicts in the Supreme Court. People always want power, and some

While this was intended to allow for individual states to handle things their own way and interpret laws differently, it has instead resulted in the consolidation of power into the hands of the federal government. Judges looking to change things for the better interpret the law in ways that will allow "reasonable" regulations and laws, but that is not the purpose of a judge. Laws are written in Legal English, a language all its own, and in this language words have specific meanings. When the 2nd Amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" (US Const. Amend. 2), it is using very strong language in legalese. To give an example of the meaning of "shall not be infringed," take Bill of Rights author James Madison's proposal for religious freedom: "nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.***citation***" His intent was obviously not to allow numerous "reasonable" regulations on rights of conscience, ie religious choice and practice. Likewise was the intent towards the right to keep and bear arms. Senate Bill 656 is still an infringement on that right, but it is less so than was previously the law. Again, as with previous arguments, any step back towards the original purpose of the 2nd Amendment is a worthy

Tushnet’s book helps teach why the Supreme Court has ruled the way it has. In 2015, Obergefell v. Hodges legalized homosexual marriage, this would not have been possible 30 years ago. Tushnet describes this in his book, the Supreme Court doesn’t always go with whether the subject is constitutional or not, public opinion, and whoever is president at the time, determines mostly how the court rules on most decisions. In many Supreme Court cases, cases pass or fail due to a 5-4 vote, this further helps Tushnet’s case that The Court Justices hold their own personal political agendas.

Marbury v. Madison, which established the power of judicial review for the Supreme Court, changed the course of American history. This power to review legislation that congress has passed and possibly deem it unconstitutional has had a profound impact on American society. This power provides a check on the Legislative branch, but it also lends itself to an important debate over when the Court can and should use this power. Should the court use this power to increase the power of the national government, something many call judicial activism? Or should this power be used to curtail national legislative power and increase the liberties given to individuals? During the period around the Great Depression, the court dealt with many economic

Supreme court justices have two opposing philosophies about interpreting the Constitution, known as judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judicial restraint being an interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their power, and shouldn’t act unless something is obviously unconstitutional, and judicial activism being rulings that are suspected of being for personal or political reasons, rather than by existing law. Each have their strengths and weaknesses, which is why it’s so hard to decide which one is more acceptable. Many cases have been decided by these two concepts. Judicial activism was the concept used in the case of Roe v. Wade, in which the Conservative ruled Supreme Court voted to enforce a law that prohibited abortion, unless to save the women’s life.

For instance, the Supreme Court established an expansive meaning of the word commerce, thereby holding that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to prescribe the rules necessary for carrying out any commercial exchange intermingled, among, and between states and nations (Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824). Therefore, Chief Justice Marshall far-reaching interpretation of the Commerce Clause permitted Congress to regulate commerce beyond the external boundaries of a State and into the interior when such commercial activity extends or affects other States (Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824). It is from the ruling in Gibbons v Ogden (1824) that the federal government’s power to regulate commerce expanded over the states so that rules and actions of the federal government supersedes those of the

This goes back to the separation of powers. It is not the place of the Legislative branch to make laws and then interpret them as well. Furthermore, it is not the place of the Executive branch to enforce and clarify the meaning of the laws. Consequently, it is judges that are in the best position to declare what the Constitution means. By striking down laws and acts that conflict with the Constitution, they preserve the nation’s fundamental law and the true will of the

While the intent or history of the laws are important to consider when interpreting the Constitution, they must come next to the actual text of the Constitution. For Justice Scalia’s form of textualism to be successfully used, a person must have a solid understanding of the Constitution. Textualism, as Scalia describes, is the practice of judging a statute only within the confounds of the law. Scalia argues that judges should not have the ability to pursue broad social purposes or create new laws from their rulings and having a textualist approach prevents judges from doing s.. Scalia’s argument is that the Constitution is nothing without the text and therefore one must look at what the text actually says when interpreting the Constitution. It is for this reason that Justice Scalia is very critical of judges who base their judgments on legislative intent or legislative history, because the words of the law do in fact carry a limited range of meaning. He goes as far as to say that if our goal of the Constitution is to conform it to the needs of today, then eventually the Constitution will cease to do anything. Justice Scalia’s written opinions in Lawrence v. Texas, D.C. v. Heller, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey demonstrate his understanding and application of

For many decades, the federal government had lots of power over any kind of interstate commerce, partially by widening the definition of interstate commerce. This was particularly true in the 1940’s when farming, manufacturing, and even janitorial staff of buildings that housed companies that dealt with interstate commerce were subject to laws from the federal government as opposed to the state. Recently, the very broad power has been narrowed by Supreme Court decisions such as US v. Lopez and US v. Morrison, where federal commerce laws were said to not extend to having guns in schools or violence against women. Congress is also not allowed to pass laws that force states to carry out a federal regulatory action, such as doing background checks