StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Difference between Judicial activism and Judicial restraint - Essay Example

Cite this document
Summary
This essay aims to provide more insight on some of the differences that exist between judicial activism and judicial restraint. Similarly, it aims to use specific examples in shedding more light on which between the two ideologies should the US Supreme Court embrace…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER98.1% of users find it useful
Difference between Judicial activism and Judicial restraint
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Difference between Judicial activism and Judicial restraint"

Political Science Political science as a discipline is advantageous for several reasons one of them being the fact that it makes it easy for those who study it to understand the various systems of justice in different parts of the world. In an attempt to ascertain that passion for justice is maintained and that difficult legal situations are managed satisfactorily in the face of all the concerned parties, political science has brought forth several aspects including judicial activism and judicial restraint.

This essay aims to provide more insight on some of the differences that exist between judicial activism and judicial restraint. Similarly, it aims to use specific examples in shedding more light on which between the two ideologies should the US Supreme Court embrace. For starters, the basis on which the two ideologies are based is different. Judicial activism is founded on the principle that the Supreme Court, as well as the judges of other lower courts, have the authority to interpret and re-interpret some of the laws entrenched within the constitution, to take into consideration the opinions held by the judges in matters of the contemporary society (Lowi et.al, 2012). Judicial restraint, on the other hand, prohibits such, and believes that the Supreme Court, as well as judges of lower courts, should refer to the constitution of the Federal Government or the respective states in coming up with judgments.

In addition, judicial restrains prevents the judges from referring to their own philosophies when making decisions. Another difference between the practices is the fact that there is a shift in policymaking. This is because judges normally assume the role of independent policy makers in the case of judicial activism. Implying that they become independent trustees of the constitution on behalf of the community. This sharply contrasts judicial restraint, which prohibits the judges from being policy makers, as they are only allowed to make their decisions hinged on what is entrenched in both the constitution and the laws of the land.

In Judicial restraint, the Supreme Court as well as the judges from other lower courts occasionally construe to the constitution in a manner that the policies placed by the Federal Government and the state governments are always taken into consideration (Lowi et.al, 2012). This implies that the decisions arrived at by the judges should acknowledge the limits of power of those in authority. Judicial activism, on the other hand, does not recognize the limits of power. This is majorly because the judges tend to construe the Constitution based on their own philosophies, which is a practice that many a times results to interpretive fidelity.

I believe the US Supreme Court should embrace judicial restraint rather than judicial activism. This is majorly because in as much as we subject the judges of our land to quality and inclusive training, decisions should normally be arrived on based on what is entrenched in the Constitution. In addition, judicial activism, which allows judges to arrive at decisions based on their own perceptions may result in laws being manipulated to satisfy the interests of given individuals. In additional, an unconstitutional practice, which if left unattended to, would render our constitution useless with time.

An example of a case where judicial restraint was duly practiced was District of Columbia vs. Heller case, which was decided in 2008 after a nine-year duration (Lowi Ginsberg, Shepsle, & Ansolabehere, 2012). The matter of contention in the case was whether the D.C code, which barred the registration of handguns, should even apply to individuals who are not affiliated with any militia but are interested in owning a gun. After much deliberations, the court voted 5-4 in favor of Heller. Reference Lowi, T. J. (2012).

American government: Power and purpose. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.

Read More
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(“Difference between Judicial activism and Judicial restraint Essay”, n.d.)
Difference between Judicial activism and Judicial restraint Essay. Retrieved from https://studentshare.org/law/1653804-difference-between-judicial-activism-and-judicial-restraint
(Difference Between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint Essay)
Difference Between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint Essay. https://studentshare.org/law/1653804-difference-between-judicial-activism-and-judicial-restraint.
“Difference Between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint Essay”, n.d. https://studentshare.org/law/1653804-difference-between-judicial-activism-and-judicial-restraint.
  • Cited: 0 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Difference between Judicial activism and Judicial restraint

Separation of Powers

This dicsussion explores that various Home Secretaries have taken judicial decisions from time to time on grounds of national security, whether during war time or in otherwise tenuous situations like the ongoing global war on terrorism.... The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 seeks to redress some of these grey areas though there are many who have, “defended the current system on the grounds that it discourage judges from making law by judicial rather than legislative means”....
4 Pages (1000 words) Essay

Dworkin and Legal Positivists

The paper "Dworkin and Legal Positivists " discusses the jurisprudential basis of impartiality in judicial decision-making based on the theory of Dworkin and juxtaposing the same with another contemporaneous legal positivist, Professor H.... The purpose of this essay in so far as it attempts to juxtapose Dworkin's theory with Hart's shall be better served if prefaced by a brief survey of how Hart perceived the impact of judicial discretion on law-making....
6 Pages (1500 words) Essay

Functions of Judges, Jurors, and Lawyers

Lawyers are the link between our legal system and the society that legal system affects.... A judge makes rulings on disputed issues of law and fact and makes certain the rules of procedure are followed.... Judges are required to makes these decisions based on all applicable prior law,… At the appellate level, judges review the decisions of lower courts....
5 Pages (1250 words) Essay

Judicial restraint and judicial activism

The Warren Court instigated the civil rights onward by suggesting that judicial restraint and Judicial Activism The doctrine of judicial activism is based on the belief that the federal judiciary is supposed to take an active function by utilizing its powers to examine the activities of the state legislatures, administrative agencies, and the Congress (this is in the case where the aforementioned government bodies go beyond their authority).... On the other hand, the doctrine of judicial restraint holds the assumption that the courts are supposed to submit to the decisions made by the executive and legislative branches....
1 Pages (250 words) Essay

Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

It states that judges should Judiciary assignment al affiliation) Describe judicial activism and judicial restraint Judicial activism is a legal ruling that is assumed to be based on political or personal consideration rather than on the existing act or law.... or decades, Republican Party leaders have decried judicial activism and championed for judicial restraint.... It is sometimes considered the opposite of judicial restraint.... Legal activism definition is a contentious issue in the United States of… judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation theory that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their power....
2 Pages (500 words) Essay

Public Law in the UK

The Human Rights Act of 19883 has incorporated the goals of the European Convention of Human Rights within the framework of national law, thereby heightening the tension between political power through legislation vis the rights of individual citizens and members of the general public.... In the case of Neville Estates Ltd v, Madden5 Cross J stated clearly that “as between different religions the law stands neutral but it assumes that any religion is better than none....
10 Pages (2500 words) Coursework

The Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890

It declared illegal any activity which restrained trade between the constituent states of the US as well as with foreign companies and imposed heavy fines and imprisonment for anyone indulging in such practice.... The paper "The Sherman Anti Trust Act of 1890" discusses that the foresight of John Sherman and his sharp acumen in recognizing the need for such an act almost 100 years ago deserves accolades as it has shaped the destiny of the country's economy and its success....
7 Pages (1750 words) Case Study

Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint in the US

The main aim of this paper under the title "Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint in the US" touches upon the information about constitutional powers in the United States and the search for the right balance between judicial activism and judicial restraint.... hellip; judicial activism and judicial restraint are the two sides of one coin, in which the former presupposes the active involvement of judges and influence of their personal opinion in the rulings' and the latter is about dealing with the possibilities of judicial overreach....
8 Pages (2000 words) Research Paper
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us