A : To what extent should the supreme court work to promote social progress ?
How broadly should justices interpret the constitution? -APEX ;)
Click the funny if it was helpful ^-^
How important is the original intent of the Constitution when deciding cases? -Apex
How important is the original intent of the Constitution when deciding cases?
The justices' own sense of restraint
9
flexible interpretation, also known as judicial activism, is a way of viewing the constitution that shows judges as trusted individuals who sometimes inject their personal beliefs and opinions when making judicial decisions rather than interpreting the constitution by its original intent. many left leaning justices of the supreme court employ the use of flexible interpretation because of its allowance of personal thoughts and beliefs having an effect on judicial rulings.
It doesn't. Judicial activism refers to court decisions where the judge(s) or (more often) Supreme Court justices interpret the Constitution in a manner that goes beyond its purported intent in order to influence public policy. The term is subjective and often used to criticize decisions which those with opposing ideology disagree.Although judicial activism is usually associated with progressive Courts (like the Warren Court), conservative Courts are equally guilty. One recent example is the 5-4 decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010) overturning legislation designed to limit corporate campaign donations.With regard to Obama's current (2010) nominee, Elena Kagan has never served as a judge, so she has no record of jurisprudence and can't be accused of participating in decisions that would be criticized as judicial activism. The Senate Judiciary Committee, likewise, is not guilty of judicial activism because the term doesn't apply to their function in the appointment process.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
No. The Executive Branch appoints US Supreme Court justices with the approval of the Senate.
Judicial restraint is the philosophy that judges and justices should defer to written legislation whenever possible, if it is not in conflict with the Constitution. A justice who uses judicial restraint tends to take a narrower view of the Constitution and does not attempt to broaden the definition of Amendments to fit a particular social or political agenda. The opposite of judicial restraint is judicial activism. For more information on the debate between judicial activism and judicial restrain, see Related Links, below.
The justices' own sense of restraint
I'm assuming you mean the Supreme Court. Judicial Restraint: the idea that justices should uphold the constitution at all costs even if it goes against their personal morals or what they believe would benefit society. This contrasts... Judicial Activism: when justices rule by considering the societal implications of such rulings and with the intent to change society for the better. This is quite controversial and perhaps the most famous example is the Warren Court, which ruled on such cases as Brown v Board, Griswald v Connecticut, etc Stare decisis: looking to past rulings and applying them to current cases
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954) has often been cited as an example of liberal judicial activismbecause it ignored the doctrine of stare decisis (Latin: let the decision stand) by overturning the long-accepted "separate but equal" standard established in Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896) and reinterpreting the 13th and 14th Amendments in a manner that supported African-Americans' civil rights.Progressives hasten to point out that Plessy was a bad precedent, and the Warren Court simply corrected social and political biases that were not intended when the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified. One could just as easily say the Plessy case was an example of judicial activism.Bear in mind that "judicial activism" is an ambiguous concept relative to a person's point-of-view and interpretation of the Constitution, and is the result of subjective judgment both on the part of the justices ruling on a case and on the part of the individuals analyzing the Court's decision
judicial activism For more information, see Related Questions, below.
The justices' ow sense of restraint
9
I assume you're asking about the branch of government, Executive, Legislative, or Judicial. The Judicial is the supreme court, with nine justices (the words judicial and justice come from the same root, see).
100
To disagree with a widely held public opinion. An explanation from justices who disagree with the Court's decision
Judges. Justices (in US)
judicial activismJudicial activism involves more than taking an active approach to stopping bad laws, however.For more information, see Related Questions, below.