The Supreme Court has a lot of power in determining the constitutionality of the law and whether not laws are unconstitutional. Although the Supreme Court’s power is extremely important to the system of checks and balance, it is also important that the justices do not have too much power. Judicial activism is when the justices of the Supreme Court make decisions based off of their personal opinions and beliefs and public opinion and they change policy, whereas judicial restraint is making decisions based off of the constitution and the law without any regard of public opinion or personal beliefs and only determining the constitutionality of a law without changing policy . In certain cases it is better to use judicial activism, especially in
…show more content…
Federal Election Committee involved Citizens United a nonprofit organization that spent money on an election movie that was clearly against Hillary Clinton called the Hillary Movie, this caused the Federal Election Committee to sued Citizens United because they believed that Citizens United actions were against the BCRA or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act which prohibited using money from a company’s general treasury to fund of campaign or political parties, this act was instated in 2002 and a result of companies unregulated spending towards campaigns and parties . In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee the constitutionality of the BCRA and whether or not it was restricting freedom of speech, and whether companies can be considered as people and reserve the same rights. Citizens United used the claim that restricting how the company chooses to spend their money was a violation of their first amendment rights, and therefore they should be allowed to spend money however they choose. This case is an example of judicial activism because the Supreme Court overruled multiple previous cases and created policy that did not coincide with precedent. It is also an example of judicial activism because they overruled two previous cases, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and parts of McConnell v. Federal Election Committee . In the Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the constitutionality of the Michigan Chamber of
Federal Election Committee involved Citizens United a nonprofit organization that spent money on an election movie that was clearly against Hillary Clinton called the Hillary Movie, this caused the Federal Election Committee to sued Citizens United because they believed that Citizens United actions were against the BCRA or the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act which prohibited using money from a company’s general treasury to fund of campaign or political parties, this act was instated in 2002 and a result of companies unregulated spending towards campaigns and parties . In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Committee the constitutionality of the BCRA and whether or not it was restricting freedom of speech, and whether companies can be considered as people and reserve the same rights. Citizens United used the claim that restricting how the company chooses to spend their money was a violation of their first amendment rights, and therefore they should be allowed to spend money however they choose. This case is an example of judicial activism because the Supreme Court overruled multiple previous cases and created policy that did not coincide with precedent. It is also an example of judicial activism because they overruled two previous cases, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and parts of McConnell v. Federal Election Committee . In the Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the constitutionality of the Michigan Chamber of