Essay On Judicial Activism

In 1787, the framers of the United States Constitution effectively separated the federal powers of the United States government into three separate but equal branches. These branches, the Legislative Branch, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch, were all given specific powers that were outlined in their respective Constitutional articles (I, II, III). Specifically, the Judicial Branch was given the power to interpret the law by Article III of the Constitution. The Judicial Branch’s highest court, the Supreme Court of the United States, has effectively been in charge of answering all political questions that have come before the United States courts system. The Supreme Court has made final decisions in cases, which in turn have set precedents that are taken into account when deciding other cases as well as when creating laws during the past 200 plus years. When deciding on a case, justices of the Supreme Court are said to use either judicial activism or judicial restraint. Judicial activism has been described as the court’s willingness to make significant changes in public policy. These changes are made by reversing previously set precedents, reversing previous acts of Congress and lawmakers, or by reinterpreting the Constitution. Judicial activism is said to be a key part of justice’s attempts to match the …show more content…
The court does this by keeping the courts past decisions or precedents, upholding previous laws, and by strictly following the Constitution. Judicial restraint is used in order to hold the past views of the court as valid. In using judicial restraint, the court is respecting the views of past judges as well as decisions made by the other branches of government. Judicial restraint is a popular view to textualists, who believe the text of the Constitution is final and not supposed to be changed