0
Opinion
There are no successes from judicial activism. It is not within the jurisdiction of judges to use the law to fulfill their own political or ideological bent. Do the laws in question conform to the Constitution? This is within the jurisdiction of the courts. Do the laws say what either the appellant or the defendant are saying it means? This is within the jurisdiction of the courts.
Are the laws written poorly thus requiring a rewrite from the judges? This is not within the jurisdiction of the courts. In my opinion, from the Miranda ruling to Roe V. Wade, up to the present, the courts have regularly assumed more power than they have.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How does judicial activism and judicial restraint affect the separation of powers?
Judicial activism weakens the separation of powers by involving the Court in what are traditionally executive and legislative functions. Judicial restraint reinforces separation of powers.
The idea that judges should use their power broadly to further justice based ontheir own personal views or agenda is called?
judicial activism!
Who favors judicial activism?
A person who favors judicial activism is one who prefers a decision to be made via a personal opinion, rather than focusing on the law. A person who does this is considered unlawful or a federalist.
Compare Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism?
Judicial restraint is the theory that judges should limit their exercise of power and strike down laws only when they are obviously unconstitutional, and always follow precedents set by older courts. Judicial activism is the opposite view, and is sometimes meant to imply politically motivated judicial decisions.
Did the Warren Court believe in judicial activism or judicial restraint?
The Warren Court, which was active from 1953 until Chief Justice Earl Warren retired in 1969, is often accused of judicial activism for its many decisions supporting African-Americans' civil rights. Whether they believed they were judicial activists or not is unknown.
What is sources of authority?
Judicial Activism
How does judicial activism and judicial restraint affect the separation of powers?
Judicial activism weakens the separation of powers by involving the Court in what are traditionally executive and legislative functions. Judicial restraint reinforces separation of powers.
Contrast original intent with judicial activism?
The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial activism versus. Versus strict constructionism, and living document versus original intent.
How do you see Judicial Activism in Pakistan?
To hell with Pakistan and you...
The idea that judges should use their power broadly to further justice based ontheir own personal views or agenda is called?
judicial activism!
What is the opposite of judicial activism?
judicial restraintFor more information, see Related Questions, below.
This type of judicial philosophy called?
Strict constructionism is a judicial philosophy that interprets the Constitution based on its original intent and text, strictly adhering to the literal meaning of the words within it. Judges following this philosophy typically do not incorporate contemporary values or societal changes in their interpretations.
What was the marshall court best known for?
for its period of Judicial Activism
Who favors judicial activism?
A person who favors judicial activism is one who prefers a decision to be made via a personal opinion, rather than focusing on the law. A person who does this is considered unlawful or a federalist.
Was Judicial Activism or Judicial Restraint used in the Tinker v Des Moines case?
Judicial activism was used because the Court ruled that the school policy prohibiting the students from wearing the arm bands to protest symbolically the Vietnam War violated the students' free speech rights. By overturning a policy of the government (the public school's policy), the Court exercised judicial activism.
Compare Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism?
Judicial restraint is the theory that judges should limit their exercise of power and strike down laws only when they are obviously unconstitutional, and always follow precedents set by older courts. Judicial activism is the opposite view, and is sometimes meant to imply politically motivated judicial decisions.
Did the Warren Court believe in judicial activism or judicial restraint?
The Warren Court, which was active from 1953 until Chief Justice Earl Warren retired in 1969, is often accused of judicial activism for its many decisions supporting African-Americans' civil rights. Whether they believed they were judicial activists or not is unknown.
