Essay On Judicial Restraint

The United States Constitution is often loosely interpreted to meet the issues of the present. In the words of former Justice Charles Evans Hughes, "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is”. (Hughes) Judicial activism and judicial restraint are the philosophy and the reason behind the majority of judicial decisions. Most people are often confused over the true meaning and their proper applications. The theory of judgment that takes into account the spirit of laws and the changing times is referred to as judicial activism, and judicial restraint looks at strict interpretation of the law and the importance of legal precedent. To figure out whether a judge or court is considered to be an activist or restrained, you must look back at the history of judgments made by either the judge or the court. So we ask ourselves what is the difference between the two terms judicial
And you would think they were all activists, but in fact they were not, they were all examples of judicial restraint since they deferred to the determinations of the other branches of government. In the case of Obergefell v Hodges is one example of activism because they are striking down laws that a majority of the justice’s interpretation as a conflict of the Constitution. (Those “activist” judges) Judicial activism is often referred to the saying “legislating from the bench,” or usurping the legislative power granted to state and national legislatures by entering decisions that demand a change in policy. (“What is the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint”) Throughout history there as been some other landmark cases of the US Supreme Court, like the case of Brown v. Board of Education, this case ignored both precedent and state laws in declaring segregation of the public school’s illegal. (American