Judicial Activism Vs. Judicial Restraint The debate between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint really grabbed my attention. Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint are two different ways to interpret the constitution and its laws. Both interpretations have their own strengths and weaknesses‚ which is why it is so hard to come to a final decision of which is acceptable and which is not (in most cases). While at the debate I didn’t realize how many cases have boiled down to these two concepts
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
AP TERM PAPER JUDICIAL ACTIVISM/ JUDICAL RESTRAINTS Ireland Situmeang AP Government and Politics 4B Mrs. Bould 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
Premium Supreme Court of the United States
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
Premium Law Ethics Political philosophy
I have expressed my views about the Pakistan Supreme Court and its need to maintain judicial self restraint in articles published in this newspaper and elsewhere. However‚ in view of the turmoil currently prevailing in Pakistan‚ a clear elaborate enunciation of the philosophy of judicial restraint is called for. In a recent statement‚ the Chief Justice has said that it is the Constitution‚ not Parliament‚ which is supreme in the country. There is no controversy about this legal position‚ and indeed
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Felix Frankfurter Harvard Law Review
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Self-Restraint There are many differences between Judicial Activism and Judicial Self Restraint. Judicial Activism is the process by which judges take an active role in the governing process and Judicial Self Restraint is that Judges should not read their own philosophies into the constitution. Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court should be an active and creative partner with the legislative and executive branches in help shaping the government policy
Premium Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Plessy v. Ferguson
Judicial activism is gaining prominence in the present days. In the form of Public Interest Litigation (PIL)‚ citizens are getting access to justice. Judiciary has become the centre of controversy‚ in the recent past‚ on account of the sudden (Me in the level of judicial intervention. The area of judicial intervention has been steadily expanding through the device of public interest litigation. The judiciary has shed its pro-status-quo approach and taken upon itself the duty to enforce the basic
Free Law Judge Court
Judicial Activism Active Judiciary‚ passive executive In normal circumstances‚ judicial activism should not be encouraged. But the circumstances are not normal. The political system is in a mess. In several areas‚ there is a situation to administrative paralysis. Take the recent Hawala case‚ which is a good example of judicial activism. What transpired in this case is very instructive. In this case the prime minister’s name was also involved‚ and
Premium Separation of powers Supreme Court of the United States Judicial review
USU 1300 Is Judicial Activism in the best interest of the American people? Suzanna Sherry reminds us in her working paper‚ Why We Need More Judicial Activism‚ that “an examination of constitutional practice shows that too little activism produces worse consequences than does too much” and since we cannot assure judges are consistently “fair” it is better to be overly aggressive than overly restrained. In the most basic sense‚ judicial activism is when judges apply their own political opinion in
Premium
2003 edition. 2. Sathe‚ S.P.‚ Judicial Activism in India: Transgressing Borders and Enforcing Limits‚ Oxford University Press‚ 2005 edition. 3. Bag‚ R.K.‚ “Judicial Activism vis-à-vis Public Administration”‚ Administrator‚ Vol. XLII‚ April-June‚ p.167. 4. Bhattacharjee‚ G.R.‚ “Judicial Activism: Its Message for Administrators”‚ The Administrator; Vol. XLII‚ April-June 1997‚ p.31. 5. Bhattacharyya‚ R.‚ “Judicial Activism: The Motive Force of Public Administration”‚ Administrator‚ Vol. XLII
Premium Separation of powers Management Governance
6 Judicial Activism in India Chief Justice P.N. Bhagwati Last fall the Law School was honored by a visit (rom Indian Chiefjustice Praiullachand Natwarlal Bhagwati. Justice Bhagwati came as the guest of Prof Marc Galanter‚ himself an expert on Indian law and a consultant to the Indian government in the Bhopal disaster. Bhagwati is the 17th chief justice of the Indian Supreme court‚ and follows his father as a justice of that court. India Today called Bhagwati‚ ’~conscious disciple of Felix Frankfurter
Free Law Judge Common law