Provide a definition of judicial activism and judicial restraint. What is the appropriate role of judges with regard to these concepts? Should judges use the current sociopolitical milieu as a gauge to interpret the constitution? Why?
Below is a Sample Solution.
Remember! This is just a sample. You can get a custom paper from one of our expert writers.
Judicial activism is a judicial ideology that holds that courts can and should consider broader societal ramifications of their judgements in addition to the applicable law. It’s occasionally used as an antonym for judicial restraint. It’s usually a derogatory word that implies judges make decisions based on their own political agenda rather than precedent and abuse judicial authority. The notion of judicial activism, as well as individual activist judgements, are contentious political issues.
Judicial activism is a judicial ideology that holds that courts can and should consider broader societal ramifications of their judgements in addition to the applicable law. It’s occasionally used as an antonym for judicial restraint. It’s usually a derogatory word that implies judges make decisions based on their own political agenda rather than precedent and abuse judicial authority. The notion of judicial activism, as well as individual activist judgements, are contentious political issues. Judicial activism is intertwined with judicial interpretation, statutory interpretation, and the separation of powers. Judges can utilize their authority as judges to redress a constitutional legal injustice through judicial activism.
Judicial restraint is the judicial interpretation that favors the status quo in judicial actions, as opposed to judicial activism. The notion of stare decisis; a conservative approach to standing and a reluctance to grant certiorari; and a tendency to provide narrowly tailored rulings, avoiding “unnecessary resolution of wide concerns” are all examples of judicial restraint. Judges’ ability to overturn laws are limited by judicial restraint. The courts have steadily abandoned their appropriate function of checking government’s structural constraints and impartially interpreting laws and constitutional provisions.
For a variety of reasons, I believe that courts should not interpret the constitution based on the current sociopolitical climate. About half of the public (49%) believes the Supreme Court’s decisions should be based on its interpretation of what the Constitution “means in today’s world,” while roughly half (46%) believes decisions should be based on what the Constitution “meant when it was first written.”