Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint Essay

A chiefly odious ruling was written in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Argued before the Court in 1896 and ultimately overruled by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, the Court, heard the case of a man named Plessy. One-eighths black, Plessy boarded a white-only car only which resulted in his arrest and jailing for violating of discriminatory segregationist statutes. The Court, under Justice Henry Billings Brown’s majority opinion, affirmed these segregationist policies establishing the infamous ‘separate but equal’ doctrine. As history would prove, the accommodations made for nonwhite Americans in many cases failed to even approach the threshold of equal. Plessy v. Ferguson stands in direct conflict with the promise of “equal justice under law”. With such a narrow interpretation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, which in part provided for equal protection under law, the Court yielded great deference to a harsh sociopolitical environment, ultimately sanctioning the segregation that would defile the American dream for many years, until Brown v. Board. The only dissenter in this case, Chief Justice John Harlan’s now-canonic phrase “our Constitution is color-blind,” (Hutchison, 427) reminds us that, contrary to the idea of the majority in this

On May 17, 1954, the Brown v. Board of Education case, stated that segregation of public schools was a violation of the 14th Amendment and was therefore unconstitutional. More importantly, Earl Warren said, “the present was at issue, not the past. ”(The Court’s Decision). In the opinion of justice Warren, the Fourteenth Amendment was not originally intended to prohibit school segregation. In the 1860s, it was uncommon for children to go to school, let alone get an education.

Another critical problem that is addressed by Scalia is the idea of “legislative history”. Legislative history is basically the process within congress leading up to the passing of a statute. Committee reports, floor debates, testimonies and other history that occurred while the statute was being constructed is what judges go to when they want the decision to go in their favor (Scalia, 1997).

Courts impact policy through how they interpret and apply the law. How the federal court wields their

I believe Judicial Activism should be removed from the Supreme Court. The Original definition of Judicial Activism is defined as a philosophy of judicial decision-

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

Justice SCALIA, J., conveyed the judgment for a common Court. As I see, this is a clear case of Judicial Restraint. The term “Judicial Restraint” is used to explain a kind of judicial understanding, which highlights the restricted nature of the court's authority. Judicial restraint requests judges to establish their judicial conclusions exclusively on the perception of stare decisis that refers to a requirement of the

The role of the Supreme Court is to interpret the constitution and to apply these interpretations to legislation that has been made by Congress as to avoid them from making unconstitutional law. In doing so this is called judicial review in which the Supreme Court takes an active role in intervening in politics. If a law is suggested as being unconstitutional the Supreme Court will either accept or decline and if they accept, this will result in the judiciary then looking at the case and determining whether or not the accusation is true or if the question is entitled to make a claim. In some instances this can be taken too far by the court and they can intervene and end

It is true that the Court cannot enforce its decision but must leave this to the executive and legislative branches. For example, when the decision to ban public school prayer came down, many states avoided complying with the "spirit" of the ruling by advocating a "moment of silence" to start off the school day. The Supreme Court banned this also in 1985 by redefining and rewording their intent (Woll 146). However, the Court does rely heavily on social support of their ruling and the reputation of the

The United States judicial branch was created by the founding fathers to help protect the rights, freedoms, and privileges of the citizens. Protection is achieved by the judicial branches’ power to approve the constitutionality and interpretation of laws. By interpreting the laws and constitutionality the judicial branch is exercising their power of judicial review. When exercising the power of judicial review judges either choose a role of judicial activism or a role of judicial restraint. This paper will include the debate of whether judges in the United States should be activists or restrained when interpreting and determining the constitutionality of laws.

Judicial Activism- refers to judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint.

The differences between judicial restraint and judicial activism can be very broad, therefore it is paramount to understand what these two philosophies mean prior to explaining its differences. Judicial restraint and judicial activism has led to a great debate over the years which basically revolves around the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the laws.

In the year of 1803, the judicial courts viewed and ruled upon case between the Judge Marbury sued against James Madison for docking and subduing his pay. The Supreme Court ruled against Judge Marbury, however couldn’t force Madison to pay, and in doing so, this case became a historic event because it showed the citizens of the United States that the Supreme Court had the final statements, and final rule in deciding whether or not a case was consistent with the constitution and if something was unconstitutional. This case would be the first of many that would show how the Supreme court evaluated courts and the constitution. This case would in turn have numerous effects on the future of the Judicial court and would turn out to be one of the

Specific justices on the U.S. Supreme Court in addition to judges in lower federal courts have debated the recognition of the Constitution's

President Obama framed judicial activism as opposing the "will of Congress," while conservatives have tended to focus more on the judicial nullification of state laws (Whittington 2014). They all prefer to be activist jurist when they believe that the legislature has made a constitutional error, and they are willing to override minorities on the bench or political opposition in order to compel their interpretations of constitutional requirements. (Whittington 2014). If anything has been proven here, is activism is not a philosophy. Activism is only a degree of evaluation in deciding cases. Judicial Review results in a spectrum of a simple yes or no in restraint judicial decisions, to almost anything else in activism judicial