Essay On Judicial Restraint

The American Judicial system has proved to be more troublesome and controversial than the founding fathers would have imagined. The debate on whether judicial activism or judicial restraint is the best idea for the country to follow has been long living. Both judicial activism and judicial restraint are described as types of judicial review. While both can be beneficial, Judicial activism is clearly more important than the other. Judicial restraint is “The judicial philosophy whose adherents refuse to go beyond the text of the Constitution in interpreting its meaning.” In other words, judicial restraint is an idea that one should not interpret laws differently than what has been expressed in the Constitution. Judicial restraint is used

What this means is Justices were concerned with becoming involved in issues that were not their concern: Therefore, judicial restraint was justified. Justices who follow judicial restraint are also much more likely to uphold previous decisions made by the Supreme Court. For instance, “Judicial restraint has a long history in American legal theory and case law. U.S. Supreme Court decisions as early as Fletcher v. Peck (1810) state that judges should strike down laws only if they “feel a clear and strong conviction” of unconstitutionality” (1) In addition, the majority of Justices have used judicial restraint in order to, “allow the legislature

America is ever changing, therefore, the constitution should be interpreted differently as time goes by. As America is ever changing, so are its supreme court justices. As time passes, new Justices replace the old, and as a result, new opinions and beliefs replace those that were dominant for years. In many cases, new Justices are chosen and they turn the tide of the court and change the way rulings turn out in the future. For example, Justice O’connor, a liberal in most cases, was replaced by a conservative Justice Alito in 2006. This switch can change how the whole court operates. Once one group of Justices that have the same idea have the majority, it is very hard for the minority to rule on cases the way that they desire. This is similar to the way Congress works with Democrats and Republicans fighting for the majority. Throughout American history, Justices’ way of thinking can often be attributed to Judicial activism. Because Justices decisions are similar through similar cases, it is fairly easy to predict what an individual Justice’s ruling will be. In most cases, a Justice will use judicial restraint over and over again because it is his/her personal opinion to translate the Constitution perfectly. This same process is done in the opposite manner as well. Over time liberal and conservative justices have ruled over cases with their own views as their deciding