Judicial Philosophies Of Justices In The United States
The judicial philosophies of the justices in the United States Supreme Court differ from one another. These philosophies are depended on the justices personal experiences and ideologies they grew up with. We find some are on the liberal side, some are conservative, while others are more on the moderate side. The liberal judges believe that the U.S constitution is a living document. This means that the Constitution should be open to modification and modernization according to the demands of contemporary times. They believe that there are certain rules and restrictions that are outdated and should be revised. The conservative judges on the other hand, strictly believe that the meaning of the Constitution was fixed by the founding fathers of the U.S
…show more content…
He firmly believes that the Constitution should only be interpreted in a way that does not go against the original objective the founding fathers had about a particular affair. On the other hand, Justice William J. Brennan was a liberal judge who believed that the Constitution was adaptable and it was possible to conform it to serve current society. His philosophy is that laws and restrictions can never violate a person’s dignity and self worth. Brennan also believed that the ‘majority rule’ system is unfair because it imposes its ruling over the minorities which he considers political imperialism. A judge who believed the exact opposite of this philosophy was Justice William Rehnquist. He considers himself a conservative but his actions show him as a moderate. Rehnquist said in one of his speeches that, “political majorities are entitled to enact positive law and impose their moral view on the minorities”(Lanahan 300). He believed that the law is backed by “moral goodness” and cannot be corrupted. As we can see, the judicial philosophy of each justices depends on their individual perspective of the Constitution and
He firmly believes that the Constitution should only be interpreted in a way that does not go against the original objective the founding fathers had about a particular affair. On the other hand, Justice William J. Brennan was a liberal judge who believed that the Constitution was adaptable and it was possible to conform it to serve current society. His philosophy is that laws and restrictions can never violate a person’s dignity and self worth. Brennan also believed that the ‘majority rule’ system is unfair because it imposes its ruling over the minorities which he considers political imperialism. A judge who believed the exact opposite of this philosophy was Justice William Rehnquist. He considers himself a conservative but his actions show him as a moderate. Rehnquist said in one of his speeches that, “political majorities are entitled to enact positive law and impose their moral view on the minorities”(Lanahan 300). He believed that the law is backed by “moral goodness” and cannot be corrupted. As we can see, the judicial philosophy of each justices depends on their individual perspective of the Constitution and