Preview

Judicial Restraint Analysis

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
231 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Judicial Restraint Analysis
I like to view the relationship between judicial restraint, judicial activism, and strict constructionism as a parallel to our current top 3 most popular political affiliations.

Judicial restraint could be considered the conservative ideology of judicial action. The concept implies that judicial power should not be wielded to overturn rulings already determined by other branches of government; even when the ruling contradicts the justice's personal ideology.

Judicial activism could be called the Liberalism of judicial action, or the left leaning ideological representation of such. This concept describes using judicial power to advance political policies. It's my opinion that this type of judicial action has had the greatest impact on the

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    In the early national period, the judiciary was the weakest of the three branches of government. When Chief Justice John Marshall established the principle of judicial review in MarburyMadison by declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional, he greatly strengthened the judiciary. Even though the high court exercised this prerogative only one other time prior to the Civil War (Dred Scott v. Sanford), the establishment of judicial review made the judiciary more of an equal player with the executive and legislative branches.…

    • 325 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism in McDonald v. City of Chicago Judicial Restraint is when the Supreme Court restricts their powers to avoid making any changes to public policy, unless that policy is unconstitutional. When applying judicial restraint to cases, the courts stand by stare decisis (previous decisions of the court), uphold current law, and hold strictly to the text of the Constitution. They think that by only interpreting the constitution and not creating new laws, that they are preserving the laws that this country was founded on. Judicial activism is the opposite.…

    • 685 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Miranda vs Arizona

    • 1766 Words
    • 8 Pages

    The Warren Court from 1953 until 1969 established luminary rights with its liberal interpretation, and as some say “ judicial policy making”, such as the “right to privacy” Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479(1965), “separate but equal is not constitutional” Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) and the definitive protection of rights in the Miranda decision.…

    • 1766 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Those who claim the Supreme Court is too politically active object to judicial activism; however there are two different types of judicial activism, there is liberal and conservative activism, they both have a different style of how the supreme court should be run, so liberal activism being actively interpreting the constitution, whereas conservative activism is the upholding of vested interests.…

    • 1269 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    An opinion that a Supreme Court Justice may write regarding a court case’s verdict that the particular justice doesn’t agree with due to how they feel the constitution should be interpreted. Other opinions that are given are Majority opinions- which are what the majority of the justices agree should be the verdict, and Concurring opinions- which are given by justices that agree with the majority opinion but have other reasons why they think their opinion is correct due to the different ways the justices interpret the constitution. Other concepts brought up in the article were the ideas of judicial activism- when a justice makes a decision based on what they personally feel rather than judicial restraint- when a justice makes a decision based strictly on current laws.…

    • 411 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    The judicial restraint theory is based off the idea that judges should limit the exercise of their own power. For example, it would make judges think before shooting down laws, just because they can, with the exception being that they are unconstitutional. The opposite of judicial restraint is judicial activism. Judicial activism is when judges make rulings based on politics or personal beliefs rather than the law itself. The main difference between these two philosophies is judicial restraint is a bit more ethical then judicial activism. Both Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor are minorities to the Supreme Court. However, they both have very different viewpoints when it comes to how their race and background play a role in their rulings.…

    • 339 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Within the criminal trial process, natural tensions ordinarily occur between all participants and procedures of which the system operates, for example Investigation, Trial and Sentencing are three key processes within the criminal justice system that require an appropriate amount of discretion in order to properly and lawfully achieve justice.…

    • 453 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Better Essays

    Recusal Study Essay

    • 1416 Words
    • 6 Pages

    The subject of recusal is not the most studied issue either. Much of the literature available and some used here is related to recusal but not necessarily the primary focus. It is still relevant and clearly connects though, and this study will illustrate that. For example, much of the history and background of the study is the same for a variety of subjects written about the Supreme Court. Terms of Engagement by Clark M. Neilly III claims that the Supreme Court’s actions restrict the constitutional theory of limited government.…

    • 1416 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    I believe that the judicial restraint philosophy is more appropriate for federal judges to follow because, unlike judicial activism, it does not allow judges to expand vague Constitutional principles to fit their own viewpoint and principles. Judicial restraint does not authorize judges to interpret Constitutional texts and laws (conservative or liberal interpretation) in order to serve their own principles, policies, and considered estimates of the vital needs of contemporary society. The judicial restraint policy also ensures that separation of powers is applied justly so that different branches of government do not intervene with the power of the other branch. Also, because the Stare Decisis has a huge impact on future decisions and precedent,…

    • 249 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Consitutional Review

    • 618 Words
    • 3 Pages

    I do believe this is true. Judicial decisions reject political motives in judicial making because the court operated on judicial impartiality and judicial independence which holds the court and judges to law without being under the influence of governmental or political agencies. Judicial independence is most important for maintain individuals rights for all citizens. The Supreme Court does not like to overturn established laws of congress but in turn will be able to overturn state rights principles.…

    • 618 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Justices of the United States Supreme Court are strategic actors who strive to secure policy outcomes as close to their preferred outcome as possible. Accomplishing this sometimes requires justices to not always pursue their true policy preferences and sometimes it requires justices to ignore legal and policy questions. In this essay, I will analyze how justices were strategic in a few landmark supreme court cases.…

    • 1622 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Judicial activism believes that judges assume a role as independent policy makers on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws. Prior to the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the duty of Supreme Court justices was to interpret law, not took it upon themselves to make law. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court justices play a more predominant role in shaping government policy and legislation today than they did prior to 1982. Judicial activism in Canada has produced results that have been perceived as problematic by legislatures. The potential for the Supreme Court justices to interfere with the making of government’s judicial-policy has led to differing opinions…

    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Conservatives believe that democracy should occur under the context of the constitutional, an order that should not only limit and separate governmental power, but also to encourage democratic opinion and deliberation. Conservatives believe that “to preserve our republican social order, no radical extra-Constitutional steps are necessary. The constitution and the laws on our statute books are generally sufficient, if they are enforced.” (Story and Laurie, 81). This essentially means that they want courts to interpret the law as it is written rather than bending it or creating their own version of the law. They do so because they believe keeping a strict interpretation of the…

    • 1308 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Supreme Court Case Study

    • 742 Words
    • 3 Pages

    That the Supreme Court exercises a policy making role has been an established fact ever since Maybury vs. Madison defined the Court’s role in judicial review of existing law. By choosing which cases to review and by establishing precedents by way interpretation of a law’s meaning and applicability the Court influences the course of action adopted not only by government but by individuals and businesses who consider the implications of the Court’s actions. In adjudicating disagreements of alternative interpretations of a law the Supreme Court establishes policies which have implications extending beyond the specific case in question and into social policy at large. In choosing which cases to review the Court calls attention to certain issues…

    • 742 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    In the book “The Hollow Hope” by Gerald Rosenberg discusses notion that there are two major schools of thought and the way that courts should view their powers. The Dynamic court which is a court that is powerful and a court that can create social change. The Constrained Court is a court that is powerless and cannot create social change because of lack of power and influence.…

    • 1975 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Powerful Essays