ipl-logo

Judicial Restraint Essay

893 Words4 Pages

The role of the judiciary in interpreting the law and ensuring justice has been a topic of debate for decades. Some argue that courts have become too powerful and that judges legislate from the bench, while others believe that courts should play a more active role in shaping public policy. The terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" are often used to describe the different approaches that courts can take in their decision-making. While conservatives have traditionally complained about the activism of liberal justices, recent years have seen a growing trend of conservative judges overturning precedents and questioning the power of elected institutions of government. This has led to questions about the legitimacy of the concept of …show more content…

This essay will explore what constitutes an appropriate role for the judiciary, what it means for a court to be activist or show restraint, and the implications of these concepts for the future of American laws.

The appropriate role for the judiciary is a subject of ongoing debate, with some arguing that courts have become too powerful and are legislating from the bench. This criticism is often directed at so-called activist judges, who are seen as taking an overly expansive view of their authority and using their power to shape public policy. In contrast, judges who practice judicial restraint are seen as limiting their role to interpreting the law as written and deferring to elected officials on matters of policy. The concept of judicial activism and restraint has a long history in American legal thought, dating back to the early 20th century. According to legal scholar Cass Sunstein, …show more content…

As the balance of power in the Supreme Court has shifted towards conservative justices, liberals have become increasingly concerned about their ability to overturn precedents and limit the power of elected institutions. This trend is particularly evident in cases related to voting rights, affirmative action, and reproductive rights. Conservatives, on the other hand, argue that they are simply restoring a long-standing legal tradition that had been eroded by liberal activism. They view their role as safeguarding the original intent of the Constitution and protecting individual liberties from government overreach. However, this ideological tug-of-war over the judiciary raises questions about the future of American democracy and the rule of

Show More
Related

Summary Of The Supreme Court Case Of Gideon V. Wainwright

1023 Words | 5 Pages

When people think of how government works, unless they’ve taken a government class, they usually think of Congress making laws and the President doing pretty much everything else. No one pays much attention to the Supreme Court unless there is a landmark case or something else to grab the news — like the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. But the Supreme Court does much more than you’d think regarding keeping the political machine running like a well-oiled … machine. Through not only interpretation of the law, but also judicial activism, the Supreme Court shows it can have as much influence over the laws of the land as either of the other branches of the federal government. In this paper, I will analyze the decision-making methods of the Court using the cases of Gideon v. Wainwright and Betts v. Brady.

Read More

Summary Of Gideon's Trumpet By Anthony Lewis

819 Words | 4 Pages

The structure of the book has placed it at the top of the reading list for aspiring law students. It effectively maps out the Supreme Court’s ruling history and also the crucial turning point of progressing American civil liberties. Robert F. Kennedy commented on Gideon’s perseverance stating, “If an obscure Florida convict named Clarence Earl Gideon had not sat down in prison with a pencil and paper to write a letter to the Supreme Court; and if the Supreme Court had not taken the trouble to look at the merits in that one crude petition among all the bundles of mail it must receive every day, the vast machinery of

Read More

Summary Of Gerald Rosenberg's Book 'The Hollow Hope'

710 Words | 3 Pages

Alex Frost Values: Law & Society 9/23/2014 The Hollow Hope Introduction and Chapter 1 Gerald Rosenberg begins his book by posing the questions he will attempt to answer for the reader throughout the rest of the text: Under what conditions do courts produce political and social change? And how effective have the courts been in producing social change under such past decisions as Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education? He then works to define some of the principles and view points 'currently' held about the US Supreme court system.

Read More

Is The Question Of Constitutional Authority In Footnote 4 Of Carolene Products?

1241 Words | 5 Pages

In order to uphold the constitution, the Supreme Court must always aim to balance power among the branches of government and not overstep boundaries in exercising its own power. For this reason, the debate over handling political questions in the courtroom

Read More

The Core Of The Case Against Judicial Review By Jeremy Waldron

486 Words | 2 Pages

Sophie Byrne John Ward POLI 100 29 March 2023 Two Week Essay Assignment Week 10 & 11 In "The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review," published in the Yale Law Journal, Jeremy Waldron argues against the concept of judicial review, which is a concept allowing courts to strike down laws that are deemed unconstitutional. Waldron argues that this concept undermines democracy and should be replaced by a system of parliamentary sovereignty; where the legislative branch holds the power to determine the final outcome when interpreting the constitution.

Read More

Stonewall Riots Essay

648 Words | 3 Pages

This is evident since the judicial branch cannot enforce power, it cannot approach matters, but matters have to seek the judiciary, and public opinion influences the court’s decisions to a great extent. When the President and Congress think that

Read More

Marbury V. Madison And Judicial Review

1604 Words | 7 Pages

In Robert Lowry Clinton’s book Marbury v. Madison and Judicial Review, the author describes the controversial ideal of judicial review that became a major power delegated to the Supreme Court following the case known as Marbury v. Madison. Clinton does this by tracing the origins of judicial review that preceded the court case, as well as describing the institution through the court case itself and its influence on future Supreme Court cases. Despite the court’s now famous history, Clinton claims in his book that there existed before, during and after the decision in Marbury v. Madison a generally agreed upon notion of judicial review in constitutional matters. Clinton believes that the Supreme Court case known as Marbury v. Madison was significant

Read More

Essay On Texas Judges

942 Words | 4 Pages

When you think about the word legal, equity rings a bell. Equity groups with decency and rationale, yet lamentably a few subtle elements shield the Judicial branch from being recently that. The legal branch comprises of the courts framework and the debating of the law. The head of particular court frameworks are judges, and these judges are to complete hearings with sacred decency. Unexpectedly, these judges are regularly not chosen into their positions on that same foremost of reasonableness.

Read More

Justice Thurgood Marshall Analysis

1324 Words | 6 Pages

Justice Thurgood Marshall Response Justice Thurgood Marshall said in his “Reflections on the Bicentennial of the United States Constitution”, “I do not believe the meaning of the Constitution was forever ‘fixed’ at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental as today” (Marshall). In this passage of his essay, Judge Marshall is critical of the government that is

Read More

Judicial Restraint Vs. Judicial Activism

557 Words | 3 Pages

Judicial restraint is only used when a law is clearly unconstitutional. The 1824 Gibbons v. Ogden case is known for its judicial restraint. In the case, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. While this case used judicial restraint to re establish powers given to congress by the constitution times have changed and they need to be ruled on through judicial activism. Dred Scott v. Sanford used Judicial restriction to uphold slavery this shows Judicial activism is important because if it was used in the Dred Scott v. Sanford case, slavery may have been viewed as unconstitutional.

Read More

Judicial Review Pros And Cons

741 Words | 3 Pages

Robert Isenhour Federal Government 110 10/10/17 Judicial Review Judicial Review had been obsolete until 1803 when the need for it arose in the case of Marbury vs. Madison, where it was then found to become a new component to the Judicial Branch. I am here to discuss why judicial review is and shall remain a doctrine commonly used in constitutional law. Judicial Review is the power for courts to review other government branches to determine the validity of its actions whether it be constitutional or unconstitutional. These ‘acts’ can be described as legislation passed by congress, presidential orders and actions, or all state and local governmental actions.

Read More

The Constrained Court

429 Words | 2 Pages

Courts prove unsuccessful in achieving social change due to the constraints on the court’s power. Rosenburg’s assessment that courts are “an institution that is structurally challenged” demonstrates the Constrained Court view. In this view, the Court’s lack of judicial independence, inability to implement policies, and the limited nature of constitutional rights inhibit courts from producing real social reform. For activists to bring a claim to court, they must frame their goal as a right guaranteed by the constitution, leading to the courts hearing less cases (Rosenburg 11). The nature of the three branches also creates a system of checks and balances in which Congress or the executive branch can reverse a controversial decision, rendering the Court’s impact void.

Read More

Similarities Between Legal Activism And Legal Restriction

160 Words | 1 Pages

Legal activism and legal restriction are exceptionally two diverse methodologies on the law. Legal activism is the point at which a judge is the person who settles on choices on issues that set types of openly approach. Legal limitation is the point at which a judge assumes an insignificant part in strategy settling on and surrenders such choices over to the lawmaking body. Legal restriction is to keep an adjust among the three branches and legal activism enables judges to overrule certain demonstrations or judgments. I trust the Supreme Court ought to have a decent adjust of the two techniques inside the nine judges.

Read More

Supreme Court Case Essay

537 Words | 3 Pages

“There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right. ”(Martin Luther King, Jr.) Most people were racist but now since the civil rights have been established most have stopped being racist and moved on. Three supreme court case decisions influenced the civil rights movements by letting more and more poeple know what the Supreme Court was doing to African Americans,and of the unfair him crow laws:(Dred Scott v. Sanford,Plessy v. Ferguson,Brown v. Board of Education). Dred Scott v. Sanford Is a case that most people felt that Dred Scott had an unfair charge against him.

Read More

Essay On Judicial Selection

801 Words | 4 Pages

Judicial selection is an intriguing topic as there are multiple ways that judges take their seat on the bench. The United States Constitution spells out how federal judges are selected and leaves it up to the individual states to establish their means for selecting judges. In federal courts, judges are appointed and it varies between appointment and election for state courts. The purpose of this paper is to examine the differences between appointments and elections (as well as the multiple types of elections) and to give an opinion as to which is the better alternative. Federal judges are appointed by the President of the United States and are confirmed on the advice and consent of the United States Senate.

Read More

More about Judicial Restraint Essay

Related Topics

Open Document