Judicial Activism Research Paper

Judicial Activism Judicial activism refers to the perception that some judicial rulings and judgments are based on political or personal preferences and prejudices rather than the subsisting law (Elliott 100). Judicial restraint on the other hand refers to the practice of judges to exercise restraint when adjudging various laws as unconstitutional except when they are obviously unconstitutional (Cox 11). Judges in this case ensure that the principle of stare decisis is respected and that precedents carry the day when making determinations with regard to matters that are similar to others decided earlier by superior courts. This paper seeks to argue a case for and against the use of judicial review philosophy of judicial activism or judicial …show more content…
In this case, the Supreme Court is urged to respect the decisions made by the executive and the legislature and merely proceed to strike down laws made by Congress or the decisions made by the executive without due regard to the principle of separation of powers. This philosophy has been hailed as one that adheres to principles of democracy. It makes the country more democratic and mature because the decisions of any of the arms of the government are respected by the other arms. The Court only intervenes when asked to do so by the other arms of the government, in which case it makes its decisions with “restraint” and respect for democracy (Elliott …show more content…
This can be seen in the case of Brown v Board of Education 347 U.S. 483where the Supreme Court in 1954 had to intervene by ordering desegregation in all public schools (Cox, p 133). This was a form of judicial activism by the honorable court and advocates of this philosophy will argue that it was a wise decision. In this case, the Court ignored the age-old stare decisis of “separate but equal” and chose to implement the 13th and 14th amendment provisions of the Constitution relating to the rights of