Judicial Activism Vs. Judicial Restraint, Using The 2015 Gay Marriage Case Of Obergefell Et Al.
1859 Words Oct 12th, 2015 8 Pages
“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,…