Judicial Activism Judicial activism is the idea that the view that the Supreme Court justices can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges ' own considered estimates of the vital needs of contemporary society when the elected "political" branches of the Federal government. Judges should not hesitate to go beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws given to them by others in order to assume a role as independent policy makers or independent "trustees" on behalf of society. judicial restraint and judicial activism are two opposing philosophies when it comes to the Supreme Court justices ' interpretations of the United States Constitution; justices
…show more content…
This has to do with the idea of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate. A case that arose in the 1980s which was called DeShaney v. Winnebago dealt with the 14th amendment, social services, and an abusive father. In this case a woman, who was the child 's mother , was denied the ability to sue under the supreme court of law. This is because the judges of the court chose to strictly follow the constitution, and due to the “Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [which] provides that "[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”” Nothing in the language of the clause is stated saying that it requires the state to protect the citizen. The judicial restraint expressed in this court case caused a young boy to live the rest of his life profoundly retarded. If the judges had convey judicial activism, and felt the pain of the mother the case would have most likely turned out differently. A young boy may have been able to live a happy healthy life, but due to the judges strictly following rules that were made in the 1780s, he lives a life of pain and cannot reach his full …show more content…
Our society has changed, and is nothing like what it used to be. The people who defend judicial activism, who are normally liberals, “say that in many cases it is a legitimate form of judicial review and that interpretations of the law must change with the times.”As a society if we follow these rules that were written so long ago we will be constrained to our old ways, which will not allow our society to grow and flourish into something greater than we could have ever imagined . A lot of people feel that the constitution is just a basis for our society, and can should be worked around due to the circumstances presented at hand. Usually a conservative party has been know to be against judicial activism, and stick strongly to the words written in the constitution. Some conservatives have been known to express certain forms of judicial activism, and are slowly turning over a new leaf. An example of this is last year, in a case called “Burwell v Hobby Lobby, the conservatives voted to carve out an exception to a provision in the Affordable Care Act for certain religiously owned corporations.” This indicates that everyone is open to change because the majority of people want to thrive in the world they live
This has to do with the idea of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate. A case that arose in the 1980s which was called DeShaney v. Winnebago dealt with the 14th amendment, social services, and an abusive father. In this case a woman, who was the child 's mother , was denied the ability to sue under the supreme court of law. This is because the judges of the court chose to strictly follow the constitution, and due to the “Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment [which] provides that "[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”” Nothing in the language of the clause is stated saying that it requires the state to protect the citizen. The judicial restraint expressed in this court case caused a young boy to live the rest of his life profoundly retarded. If the judges had convey judicial activism, and felt the pain of the mother the case would have most likely turned out differently. A young boy may have been able to live a happy healthy life, but due to the judges strictly following rules that were made in the 1780s, he lives a life of pain and cannot reach his full …show more content…
Our society has changed, and is nothing like what it used to be. The people who defend judicial activism, who are normally liberals, “say that in many cases it is a legitimate form of judicial review and that interpretations of the law must change with the times.”As a society if we follow these rules that were written so long ago we will be constrained to our old ways, which will not allow our society to grow and flourish into something greater than we could have ever imagined . A lot of people feel that the constitution is just a basis for our society, and can should be worked around due to the circumstances presented at hand. Usually a conservative party has been know to be against judicial activism, and stick strongly to the words written in the constitution. Some conservatives have been known to express certain forms of judicial activism, and are slowly turning over a new leaf. An example of this is last year, in a case called “Burwell v Hobby Lobby, the conservatives voted to carve out an exception to a provision in the Affordable Care Act for certain religiously owned corporations.” This indicates that everyone is open to change because the majority of people want to thrive in the world they live