Since the Supreme Court's inception, there has been considerable debate on its proper role in government. This discourse includes disagreements over the proper role of courts in comparison to legislatures, as well as significant dispute on the degree of rigidity necessary when interpreting the language of the Constitution. From this discourse, two opposing schools of thought have formed: proponents of judicial activism and the implicit ideal of loose constructionism against proponents of judicial restraint and the implicit ideal of strict constructionism. Judicial activism and the "living constitution" interpretation are often criticized for being undemocratic. Describing the practice as "legislating from the bench," many critics say that
…show more content…
However, this is not a realistic endeavor. In his defense of active liberty, Stephen Breyer argued that, because the law has a direct effect on daily life, judges should "look to consequences, including contemporary conditions..." Breyer reasoned that because provisions of the Supreme Court are not applied in a vacuum, it's best that they are not synthesized in one. Breyer's judicial philosophy is the more practical, modern alternative to extremist originalism promoted by strict …show more content…
Simmons. He espoused that the Supreme Court needs limitations on the "degree of abstraction" upon an Amendment's "major premise." Bork believed that basing judgments on society’s moral compass denied the Constitution as law. He advocated for judgments based upon the Founder’s intentions rather than tenuous moral philosophy. He argued that "only by limiting themselves to the historic intentions underlying each clause of the Constitution" could Supreme Court Justices prevent themselves from becoming legislators. But often the intentions of the Founding Fathers do not coincide with the goals of a modern society. We often forget that the framers of the Constitution were white, slave-holding men who would sooner scrap the Constitution altogether than extend equal rights to women and African-Americans. The Constitution was often utilized to defend the institution of slavery. Consideration of modern moral philosophy in tandem with the Constitutional frameworks ended the institution. If the Court defers only to the historical intent and only subscribes to eighteenth-century rhetoric, it risks stagnating the progression of our entire
However, this is not a realistic endeavor. In his defense of active liberty, Stephen Breyer argued that, because the law has a direct effect on daily life, judges should "look to consequences, including contemporary conditions..." Breyer reasoned that because provisions of the Supreme Court are not applied in a vacuum, it's best that they are not synthesized in one. Breyer's judicial philosophy is the more practical, modern alternative to extremist originalism promoted by strict …show more content…
Simmons. He espoused that the Supreme Court needs limitations on the "degree of abstraction" upon an Amendment's "major premise." Bork believed that basing judgments on society’s moral compass denied the Constitution as law. He advocated for judgments based upon the Founder’s intentions rather than tenuous moral philosophy. He argued that "only by limiting themselves to the historic intentions underlying each clause of the Constitution" could Supreme Court Justices prevent themselves from becoming legislators. But often the intentions of the Founding Fathers do not coincide with the goals of a modern society. We often forget that the framers of the Constitution were white, slave-holding men who would sooner scrap the Constitution altogether than extend equal rights to women and African-Americans. The Constitution was often utilized to defend the institution of slavery. Consideration of modern moral philosophy in tandem with the Constitutional frameworks ended the institution. If the Court defers only to the historical intent and only subscribes to eighteenth-century rhetoric, it risks stagnating the progression of our entire