Compare And Contrast 1989 Texas Vs Eichman

To begin with, in the judicial system, there is an ongoing dispute over what compromises the proper amount of judicial power. This lack of agreement concerning policymaking power of the Courts is bestowed within the discussion between judicial activism and judicial restraint. In general, these two philosophies represent the conflicting approaches taken by judges in their task of interpretation. Consequently, the Court’s decision could be framed in terms of activism or restraint by either changing or upholding public policy.

First, judicial activism is defined as the Court’s willingness to make significant changes in public policy. Judicial activists argue that there is a deliberate need for change in public policy since society is constantly

Eichman decision reflects judicial activism, it can be argued that the supreme case ruling actually demonstrates judicial restraint. First, the 1990 United States v. Eichman verdict reflects judicial restraint because it upholds and applies stare decisis. To illustrate, in both the 1990 United States v. Eichman case and the 1989 Texas v. Johnson case, the Court ruled that individuals could not be criminalized for flag burning. The 1989 Texas v. Johnson case was similar to the 1990 United States v. Eichman case because both involved the prosecuting an individual for flag burning. In the Texas v. Johnson case, Gregory Lee Johnson protested the policies of the Reagan administration during the 1984 Republican National Convention; Like Shawn Eichman, Johnson also burned an American flag during the protest. Although nobody was physically harmed, the flag burning offended many witnesses. As a result, “Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute, and a state court of appeals affirmed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances.” This reflects judicial restraint because the United States v. Eichman Court decision faithfully applied the precedent and honored the prior Court decision from the 1989 Texas v. Johnson case. In addition to upholding the prior Court decision from Texas v. Johnson, the United States v. Eichman ruling also reflects judicial restraint because it adhered strictly to the Constitution. To exemplify, the First Amendment in the Constitution directly states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of