Show
Next Article: Separation of Powers - Checks & Balances Back to: CONSTITUTIONAL LAW What is Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism?As previously discussed, appellate courts have the power of judicial review. This includes the power to review laws passed by the legislative body or actions by the executive and to declare them to be unconstitutional and void. Two primary views exist regarding the role of the judiciary in executing its authority: What is Judicial Restraint?Proponents of judicial restraint believe that the judiciary's power of review should not be used except in unusual cases. They specifically believe that a review of laws that has the effect of expanding or limiting the understanding of constitutional rights is too important to be decided by courts unless absolutely necessary. As such, any case that requires analysis and interpretation as to the extent of rights afforded under the Constitution is to be avoided if there is another legal basis for a decision. Proponents of judicial restraint also believe that litigation is not the appropriate technique for bringing about social, political, and economic change. That is, the social, political, and economic change should only result from the passage of laws by the legislative branch of the federal or state government. What is Judicial Activism?Proponents of judicial activism support the use of the judiciary's power of review. They believe that judicial interpretation of laws is the appropriate vehicle for developing legal standards and should be used whenever justified by the needs of society or public sentiment. Proponents of judicial activism also believe that constitutional issues must be decided within the context of contemporary society. They adopt the view that the meaning of the Constitution is relative to the collective beliefs, sentiments, and values of society at the time in which the law is being interpreted. These views of the role of appellate courts have become largely a political issue. Related Concepts
What are the major arguments in favor of or against judicial restraint? Judicial Activism? How do these points of view align with the beliefs of major political parties within the United States?
ABC Corporation spends a great deal of money each year lobbying politicians. It contributes tens of millions of dollars of shareholder money to political action committees that support particular political candidates that support policies favorable to ABC. ABC tasks you with researching political candidates to identify which candidates actively endorse the view of judicial restraint? Why do you think this information is relevant and valuable to ABC?
Was this article helpful?
 Judicial Activism vs Judicial Restraint Judicial activism and judicial restraint are true opposite approaches. Judicial activism and judicial restraint, which are very relevant in the United States, are related to the judicial system of a country, and they are a check against the fraudulent use of powers of the government or any constitutional body. Judicial activism is the interpretation of the Constitution to advocate contemporary values and conditions. On the other hand, judicial restraint is limiting the powers of the judges to strike down a law. In judicial restraint, the court should uphold all acts of the Congress and the state legislatures unless they are violating the Constitution of the country. In judicial restraint, the courts generally defer to interpretations of the Constitution by the Congress or any other constitutional body. In the matter of judicial activism, the judges are required to use their power to correct any injustice especially when the other constitutional bodies are not acting. This means that judicial activism has a great role in formulating social policies on issues like protection of rights of an individual, civil rights, public morality, and political unfairness. Judicial restraint and judicial activism have different goals. Judicial restraint helps in preserving a balance among the three branches of government; judiciary, executive, and legislative. In this case, the judges and the court encourage reviewing an existing law rather than modifying the existing law. When talking about the goals or powers of judicial activism, it gives the power to overrule certain acts or judgments. For example, the Supreme Court or an appelate court can reverse some previous decisions if they were faulty. This judicial system also acts as checks and balances and prevents the three branches of government; judiciary, executive and legislative from becoming powerful. Summary: 1.Judicial activism is the interpretation of the Constitution to advocate contemporary values and conditions. Judicial restraint is limiting the powers of the judges to strike down a law. 2.In judicial restraint, the court should uphold all acts of the Congress and the state legislatures unless they are violating the Constitution of the country. 3.In the matter of judicial activism, the judges are required to use their power to correct any injustice especially when the other constitutional bodies are not acting. 4.Judicial activism has a great role in formulating social policies on issues like protection of rights of an individual, civil rights, public morality, and political unfairness. 5.When talking about the goals or powers of judicial activism, it gives the power to overrule certain acts or judgments. For example, the Supreme Court or an appelate court can reverse some previous decisions if they were faulty.
Custom Search |
What is meant by judicial activism and judicial restraint?
Pos Terkait
Copyright © 2024 ketajaman Inc.
