answersLogoWhite

0


Best Answer

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.

User Avatar

Wiki User

11y ago
This answer is:
User Avatar

Add your answer:

Earn +20 pts
Q: Who favors judicial activism?
Write your answer...
Submit
Still have questions?
magnify glass
imp
Continue Learning about American Government

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!


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 court became identified with judicial activism?

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.Judicial activism is often a derogatory charge associated with the phrase "legislating from the bench," that implies the Court exceeds its authority toUNDER CONSTRUCTION

Related questions

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.


What was the marshall court best known for?

for its period of Judicial Activism


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.


Was Miranda v. Arizona considered judicial restraint or judicial activism?

Neither. The court simply ruled that people need to be advised of rights they had always been entitled to. --- Activism, because the Court invented a new rule. They used their power broadly to further justice instead of just allowing the decisions of the other branches of government to stand. It's true that their rights were already there, but that's not the determining factor of Judicial activism/restraint.


What judicial activism?

When a court changes the interpretation of a law from what the legislative branch intended