Untitled document (3)
docx
School
Ivy Tech Community College, Northcentral *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
102
Subject
Political Science
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
6
Uploaded by MajorGalaxyWhale40
MO6 Judicial Activism & Judicial Restraint Case Study
1
Gracie Drake Ivy Tech Community College
POLS1- Intro to American Gov.
Professor Bell
December 3rd, 2023
In recent elections, the political landscape has been filled with numerous critical issues
MO6 Judicial Activism & Judicial Restraint Case Study
2
that have made their way to the Supreme Court. Two cases that caught my attention were Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012). The rulings in these cases have had a profound impact on the American public, shaping our society in significant ways. It's fascinating how the decisions made by the Supreme Court can ripple through our lives.
Before delving into the intricacies of these particular case briefs, I held the belief that the role of the Supreme Court should lean towards that of Judiciary Activists. While acknowledging the immense significance and brilliance of the United States Constitution, it is essential to recognize that it is a document rooted in a specific historical context. As time progresses, society evolves, and new challenges arise that the framers of the Constitution could never have foreseen.
In order for our legal system to remain relevant and effective, it must be adaptable to the ever-changing reality we face. Take, for instance, the abhorrent practice of witch trials, where individuals were accused of witchcraft and subjected to the gruesome act of being burned at the stake. Such a practice, once considered lawful, is now widely condemned and viewed as a dark chapter in our history. This serves as a stark reminder of the need for our justice system, including the esteemed United States Supreme Court, to evolve alongside our society.
By embracing a more progressive approach, our judicial system can address contemporary issues that were unimaginable centuries ago. This does not imply a disregard for the Constitution, but rather an interpretation that reflects the evolving values and needs of our modern society. The Constitution should serve as a living document, capable of accommodating the complexities and nuances of our time.
As we continue to progress as a nation, it is imperative that our legal institutions,
MO6 Judicial Activism & Judicial Restraint Case Study
3
including the Supreme Court, remain open to the possibility of change. This ensures that justice is not only blind but also responsive to the needs and aspirations of the American people. By embracing this mindset, we can foster a legal system that upholds the principles upon which our great nation was founded, while also adapting to the ever-evolving landscape of our society.
You know, when it comes to the Supreme Court, it's crucial that they remain realistic and consider the contemporary context in which we live. If we examine the Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n case, some argue that it exemplifies judicial activism. The idea that corporations are treated as "people" and have the right to influence political campaigns is not explicitly addressed in the Constitution. It's a novel concept that the Supreme Court decided upon.
If we believe that this decision is valid, despite its lack of explicit constitutional basis, then there may be other areas where similar decisions can and should be made. It's all about adapting to the changing landscape and needs of our society. Therefore, it is of utmost importance for the Supreme Court to take these factors into consideration and make decisions that align with the realities of our time.
When it comes to the National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius case, legal
scholars have differing opinions on whether it exemplifies judicial restraint or judicial activism. Some argue that it demonstrates judicial restraint because the Supreme Court chose to save the Affordable Care Act instead of declaring it unconstitutional. David Gans, in the American Constitution Society report, emphasizes the importance of courts endeavoring to save, rather than
destroy, the rest of a law when it is partially unconstitutional.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
MO6 Judicial Activism & Judicial Restraint Case Study
4
On the other hand, there are those who view this ruling as an instance of judicial activism. They argue that if the Supreme Court operates as strict constitutionalists, they should consistently apply that approach across the board. Since there is no explicit provision in the Constitution guaranteeing the right to medical care, some believe that the Court's decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act goes beyond the scope of strict constitutional interpretation. Ultimately, the interpretation of this case can vary depending on one's perspective and legal philosophy. It's a complex issue that continues to be debated among legal experts and scholars.
I stand by my belief that the Supreme Court must operate in reality and honor the Constitution as a dynamic document. The Supreme Court should definitely operate in reality and recognize that the Constitution is a living document that should adapt to the changing times. It's important to interpret it in a way that reflects the needs and values of our society today. The Constitution shouldn't be seen as something set in stone, but rather as a framework that can evolve and grow with us.
MO6 Judicial Activism & Judicial Restraint Case Study
5
REFERENCES
American Constitution Society. (2019, December 4). https://www.acslaw.org/issue_brief/briefs-
landing/to-save-and-not-to-destroy-severability-judicial-restraint-and-the-affordable-care-act/.
Retrieved from https://www.acslaw.org: https://www.acslaw.org/issue_brief/briefs-landing/to-
save-and-not-to-destroy-severability-judicial-restraint-and-the-affordable-care-act/
Mann, T. (2010, January 26). https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/citizens-united-vs-federal-
election-
commission-is-an-egregious-exercise-of-judicial-activism/. Retrieved from
https://www.brookings.edu: https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/citizens-united-vs-federal-
election-commission-is-an-egregious-exercise-of-judicial-activism
MO6 Judicial Activism & Judicial Restraint Case Study
6
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help