JUDICIAL ACTIVISM/ JUDICAL RESTRAINTS
AP Government and Politics 4B
April 22, 2012
The Supreme Court receives its powers from Article III of the Constitution. Article III states that “the judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and un such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” (The Supreme Court in the American System of Government) According to this, the Supreme Court of the United States was admitted by the authority of the Judiciary Act of 1789. The Supreme Court has the power to revenue court cases whether they need to be amended or dismissed. The Supreme Court can overrule many jurisdiction actions due to the establishment with the power of judicial review. “The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over cases relating to the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties involving the United States.” (U.S. Supreme Court) This essentially means that the Supreme Court has higher values and little limitations amongst cases. Whether they are different cases in worse situations the particular cases that are brought up to those higher courts, which in this case is the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has the overrule and power of many things dealt with cases, these are the basic ones that are appointed to them to amend and take action. An great example for a combination of all these disputes of a Supreme Court justice are two court cases that are Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). These cases cased a controversial expressed view with some constitutional scholars believing that the Court’s role is limited to interpreting policy that argues in favor of judicial activism and judicial restraint, by the order of Chief Earl Warren.
“At the highest level, the Supreme Court was to consist of six justices, a chief and five associates…” (U.S. Supreme Court) Earl Warren served as fourteenth Chief Justice of the United States. Warren was known for decisions of the Warren Court, which ended school segregation and reconstructed majority areas of the American laws, especially the court cases that dealt with the “one-man-one vote” rule of appointment. He was also known as the one that faces cases that dealt with civil rights. Warren made the Court a very powerful settlement with the base of Congress and many decisions that intended to be Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). He solved cases whether they were to the extreme, in each of the court cases he handled with; he made sure he used judicial activism.
William O. Douglas once wrote, “The judiciary must do more than dispense justice in cases and controversies. It must also keep the charter of government current with the times and not allow it to become archaic or out of tune with the needs of the day.” By this Douglas meant that in many cases they are always going to be controversies whether they do not agree you’re your decision or have there own opinion on the case. Judicial activism plays a big role in the Supreme Court cases. Judicial activism is when courts do not confine themselves to right interpretations of laws, but instead they will create a new law due to the interpretations. It is said that in judicial activism courts do not limit their ruling to the dispute before them, but instead establish a new rule amongst broadly issues that are not well introduced in the specific actions. Judicial activism is also when judges alternate their own political opinions for the appropriate law. This is when the judges are well known to act upon a traditional court. In this being, the court takes ability for themselves upon Congress, rather than restraining itself to the competence traditionally given to the judiciary. Judicial activism will have judges that will make a decision based on a particular law that was somewhat dealing with the case without much of authority. Judicial activism is always apart of a...