Judicial Activism And Judicial Restraint Analysis

Judicial Activism- judges should interpret and apply the law in the light of ongoing changes in conditions and values
Judicial Restraint- judges should decide cases on the basis of the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution
Precedent- Court decision that stands as an example to be followed in future, similar cases
Majority Opinion- Officially called the Opinion of the Court; announces the Court’s decision in a case and sets out the reasoning upon which it is based
Dissenting Opinion- Written explanation of the views of one or more judges who disagree with (dissent from) a decision reached by a majority of the court
Concurring Opinion- Written explanation of the views of one or more judges who support a decision reached by a majority of the court, but wish to add or emphasize a point that was not made in the majority decision

The difference between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint is that Judicial Activism courts interpret the law loosely and will create a new precedent if need be, especially when pertaining to cases dealing with civil rights and social welfare. Judicial Restraint courts take the law strictly and make their decision based on how the law is stated in the Constitution.

Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas
In the U.S. Supreme Court case of Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, the issue of segregation in public schools was addressed. Oliver Brown, a local welder, assistant pastor, and african american, along with several other african american parents, filed a suit against the Topeka Board of Education because their children were denied admission because of their race. The Court decided in favor of Brown and ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional.
The d...

... middle of paper ...

...he country against espionage far exceeded the individual rights of Korematsu and other Japanese Americans. The Court followed the law as it was stated and did not create a new precedent regarding the situation.
The decision made by the Court, that the restrictions placed on Japanese Americans were seen as a necessary action taken to protect the public, was controversial. Although the act of deporting Japanese American citizens to internment camps seemed as though it defied their citizenship rights, the protection of the public outweighed the rights of Korematsu and other Japanese Americans. Korematsu v United States impacted the U.S government by setting the precedent for the new analysis of racial discrimination. This set new standards to be upheld and tied closely to the 14th amendment, which addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law.