Preview

Judicial Restraint Analysis

Satisfactory Essays
Open Document
Open Document
527 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Judicial Restraint Analysis
Definition of judicial restraint, mention Marbury V Madison (1803). Set out argument strict constructionists argue that the SC should stick to the original intentions of the FF whilst loose constructionists argue that the SC must reinterpret the Constitution in order to move with the times and bring it up-to-date. Judicial restraint has an impact on many members of US society that are not protected under the original Constitution. Main- All decisions whether restrained or activist have huge political significance. E.g. abortion, Rights of African Americans, etc. If restrained, the court can turn away cases and choose not to even hear them. The SC can pick and choose (they only choose between 90-100 cases to hear a year). Liberals argue …show more content…
Although sometimes this is necessary in order for progression and a fair society. Inaction (restraint) may actually be only looking after the interests of Conservatives) Many Conservatives argue that the FF never intended the SC to yield so much power.They believe judges should have adjudicative role only.They believe policy decisions should only be made by democratically elected representatives of the people.They believe the prestige of the court system would be diminished by involvement in political decisions Stare Decisis (Let things be) precedent. Counter Can the US society function without people looking after the Constitution and reinterpreting it for the benefit of all Think Gay rights, rights of women, immigrants, Blacks. Times change social change happens opponents argue that restraint allows judges to passively accept values without question these are contrary to US societys values AA are not slaves anymore 14th Amendment needs to protect them too and so restraint has political significance because it allows Conservative and republican views to remain undisturbed this pleases the right wing, particularly the …show more content…
H2 q( r,x7wvedOrC 0 _ebgCG5PJBEnIU .n6Z kjCw4Rzn0nhz_Tx1W- , VMbF2zg/z
/RypVF OWDmZ2jpHc-eaFPv mgl wzwUC q ,6N )Dp2J2noUfew-SnqKW_ y2Svefmt8bUECV0ZeAxAPTjB 0RFbIza dghN_sJWwz8awSj(OBCI 7gMHDNlv
(zAdzP/Yax e)zGo/kY Y, dXiJ(x( I_TS 1EZBmU/xYy5g/GMGeD3Vqq8K)fw9
Continue Reading
View Writing Issues

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Better Essays

    To what extent has the Roberts Court witnessed a revival of conservative activism
    • 968 Words
    • 3 Pages

    To what extent has the Roberts Court witnessed a revival of conservative activism

    Firstly, a major principal characteristic of the Roberts Court is over turning congressional and state legislation in order to achieve conservative goals. The Roberts court is finding laws unconstitutional and reversing precedent, two measures of activism. But the ideological direction of the court’s activism has undergone a marked change toward conservative results. The Roberts Court issued conservative decisions 58% of the time in its first 5 years throughout all cases. The Burger and Rehnquist courts issued conservative decisions 55% and the lowest from the Warren courts, which issued conservative decisions only 34% of the time. The incline in conservative decisions gives evidence that there is a growing number of people who favour this strict and traditional form of court rulings and decision making as opposed to Roberts immediate predecessors who display a more modern and loose approach to the US political system…

    • 968 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Franklin D. Roosevelt's Plan to Expand Judicial Power in 1937
    • 325 Words
    • 1 Page

    Franklin D. Roosevelt's Plan to Expand Judicial Power in 1937

    At no time in this century was the devotion to that principle more vigorously evoked than in 1937, when Franklin Roosevelt introduced a plan to increase the number of Justices on the Supreme Court. The conflict set off by the President's plan is more understandable when viewed in the historical context of expanding judicial power as well as in the contemporary context of pro- and anti-New Deal politics.…

    • 325 Words
    • 1 Page
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Constitution Guard Against Tyranny Analysis
    • 906 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Constitution Guard Against Tyranny Analysis

    In the year of 1787 the rights and liberties of citizens of the United States would be changed for eternity. The Constitution was signed to create a democracy by which the United States was governed to protect against tyranny (cruel or unjust powers). Before the Constitution, under the Articles of Confederation, there was no chief executive or leader, no court system, and there wasn’t even a way for the central government to force a state to pay taxes. So, how did the Constitution guard against tyranny? Federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and big states v. small states are all ways that protect the people of the United States and the Constitution against tyranny.…

    • 906 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Mcdonalds Vs City Of Chicago Judicial Activism
    • 685 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Mcdonalds Vs City Of Chicago Judicial Activism

    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
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Judicial Review U S Supreme Court S Main Power
    • 1489 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Judicial Review U S Supreme Court S Main Power

    <html><head></head><body><p>In a nation of democratic governance, the United States has unquestionably succeeded in its own development and potency since the establishment of the Constitution. The United States was founded in hopes of having a truly free, full functioning society. In order to achieve such a goal, the framers of this country drafted the Constitution brilliantly and attentively. With the creation of the three branches, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, the Constitution also created checks and balances, the capability for each branch to check the power of the others. To ensure the continuing proficiency of our democratic nation and "checks and balances" system, it is crucial to equalize the branches by separating, and equally distributing power among the three branches. However, before 1803, the judicial branch was lacking such said power over the legislative and executive branches. It was not until the case of Marbury v. Madison that Chief Justice Marshall justified the power of judicial review to the judiciary branch, finally obtaining equal leverage among the legislative and executive branches. With the implementation of judicial review, the U.S. Supreme Court has jurisdiction and authority to strike down law, overturn executive acts, and legally bind a public official to properly carry out constitutional duties. Indisputably, the practice of judicial review is the main power of the United States Supreme Court to date.</p>…

    • 1489 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Difference Between Judicial Restraint Theory And Judicial Activism
    • 339 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Difference Between Judicial Restraint Theory And Judicial Activism

    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
    Read More
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Examine The Role Of Discretion In The Criminal Trial Process
    • 453 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Examine The Role Of Discretion In The Criminal Trial Process

    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
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Term Limit In Supreme Court Justices
    • 1001 Words
    • 5 Pages

    Term Limit In Supreme Court Justices

    One of the major jobs for the federal judges is to protect the United States from the “tyranny of the majority”. Furthermore, even if the majority rules, the minority still has rights. Many components of the Bill of Rights, which the judges are called to enforce, are designed to protect the rights of the unpopular minorities. Being a Supreme Court judge is a difficult job, and even with life tenure, they are not completely immune from political pressure. They remain members of society; therefore it is difficult to allow things to happen even if they know it is morally wrong, but constitutionally…

    • 1001 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Philosophy Of Judicial Restraint
    • 249 Words
    • 1 Page

    Philosophy Of Judicial Restraint

    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
    Read More
  • Better Essays

    Judicial Branch In The 20th Century
    • 1390 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Judicial Branch In The 20th Century

    "[The Judicial Branch] may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment” Hamilton explained when analyzing the Judiciary’s initial intent. Article 3 section 1 of the Constitution grants the Supreme court “The judicial Power of the United States.” this power can be given to inferior courts such as circuit and district courts as “Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Later, in article 3 section 2, the Judicial branch is granted power that “extend[s] to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority.” The Judicial branch has explicit power to interpret the intent of past laws, treaties made, and…

    • 1390 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Better Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Supreme Court Case Analysis
    • 1622 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Supreme Court Case Analysis

    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
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Judicial Activism In Canada
    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Judicial Activism In Canada

    By making decisions regarding the interest of the society the courts assume responsibilities that belong exclusively to the legislative and executive branches of government. The Supreme Court justices may rule based on what is in their best interest while saying that they are deciding for the good of the society. Moreover, when the Supreme Court justices are appointed, not elected, they may not be the representatives of the public’s view. As a result, judges begin making policy decisions about social or political changes society should make and become “unelected legislators.” By freely interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, the communities’ confidence in the Supreme Court will be undermined. When judicial activism in the Supreme Court wields too much power, it can eventually destruct the essence of…

    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Powerful Essays

    Cult Of True Womanhood Analysis
    • 1975 Words
    • 8 Pages

    Cult Of True Womanhood Analysis

    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
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Essay On Life Tenure
    • 510 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Essay On Life Tenure

    During their tenure, a Justice will be able to continue learning and understanding the law, so that in every situation they know what is constitutional and unconstitutional. Confucius once said, “Study the past if you would define the future.” The decisions of Supreme Court Justices have led to many new laws. However, those decisions are made by justices who have been doing that for a while. These Supreme Court Justices understand our past, the decisions, laws, and consequences, and know how to act upon that because of their prolonged tenure as justices. Under no circumstance does anybody just stop learning, so Justices will be ripe with knowledge until their time is done, they choose to step down, or are impeached. Therefore, Supreme Court Justices life tenure helps them understand and master their role in the Supreme…

    • 510 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More
  • Good Essays

    Evaluate the role of the supreme court in protecting the rights and liberties of US citizens.
    • 583 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Evaluate the role of the supreme court in protecting the rights and liberties of US citizens.

    The power of judicial review has allowed the Supreme Court to protect civil liberties within America. Its involvement in civil rights issues have ranged from racial issues, to the rights of those accused and the reapportionment of electoral districts.…

    • 583 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
    Read More

Related Topics