Judicial Activism Vs. Judicial Restraint, Using The 2015 Gay Marriage Case Of Obergefell Et Al.

1859 Words Oct 12th, 2015 8 Pages
As we know about the Supreme Court, The Supreme Court is made up of nine justices, coming from varied religious and ethnic backgrounds with six males and three females. Presidents nominate Justices for life tenure and they must be confirmed by majority vote of the Senate. According to NY Times article that has the title” Supreme Court Ruling Makes Same-Sex Marriage a Right Nationwide”, on June 27th, the US Supreme Court decided 5-4 that same-sex couples have a ‘fundamental’ right to marry, and thus overturned the laws of at least 17 states. In this assignment, I will discuss the arguments both for and against judicial activism vs. judicial restraint, using the 2015 gay marriage case of OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL.
“Judicial Activism vs. Judicial restraint” is a dichotomy reflected in the current jurisprudence of the Supreme Court. Judicial activism describes judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal political considerations rather than on existing law. Judicial restraint 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.
In OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL, the Supreme Court used its power of judicial review to legalize gay marriage throughout the nation. After they made a consideration,…

Related Documents