Judicial activism or judicial restraint, that’s the question. Should we use judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law. Or should we limit the exercise of the judges power. Judicial restraint asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate. So which is it, use personal opinion or facts to decide a case? That’s a rather easy decision, in my opinion, when judges use opinion in their decisions, they often use their biases against certain persons --knowingly or not-- and this can override a more sound judgement. Using facts instead of opinion limits this bias and allows for the truth to be delivered without personal prejudice getting in the way of justice. However, I do believe that there is need in also ruling cases in favor of minority groups to protect their rights as well. One case which is known for its judicial restraint is the 1824 case entitled Gibbons v. Ogden. In this case, the Supreme …show more content…
A Court that is too deferential cannot fulfill that role. Which is an excellent point, sometimes courts favor the majority over the individual, and that is not how a case should be tried in court, each case should be about the individual problem at hand. However, using a system like judicial activism, that uses judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law is exactly what the courts should be limited, but not completely disregarded as well. An example of when judicial activism has been used is in the case Roe v. Wade. The majority of the Supreme Court decided that an individual's right to privacy includes the right to have an
The decision in the Gibbons v. Ogden case is, in my opinion, a very just
Bounds v. Smith was argued November 1, 1976 and the case was decided April 27, 1977 by THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS for the Fourth circuit. MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, BLACKMUN, POWELL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion. BURGER, C.J., filed a dissenting opinion. STEWART, J., post, and REHNQUIST, J filed dissenting opinions, in which BURGER, C.J., joined.
Another similar case was the Dred Scott Decision. Dred Scott, being a black man during the 1820's, was yet again considered inferior to bring his case to the court. From a reader's point of view, Dred Scott's case was very legit. The Missouri Compromise of 1820 made Scott a free man. All of the blacks going through the 35'36 altitude/latitude line were said to be free men. When Dred Scott entered Illinois, he entered thinking he was a free man, until his owner assaulted him upon the return. Dred Scott did his best to bring not one but three assault cases to the court against his "owner", John F. A. Sanford; however, the court dismissed him as inferior to take any participation or even demand a fair trial. The court also called upon the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional because of deprivation of personal property, which in this case was Dred Scott - a property of John Sanford. Eventually the sons of Sanford purchased Scott and his wife, and set them free. Scott died just a year after that.
Wallace v. Jaffree. United States Supreme Court. 4 June 1985. Find Law. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 May 2014.
There have been many, many court cases throughout the history of the United States. One important case that I believe to be important is the court case of Clinton v. New York. This case involves more than just President Bill Clinton, the City of New York. It involved Snake River Farmers’ as well. This case mostly revolves around the president’s power of the line item veto.
There were several cases that led the Supreme Court justices to making their decision in Sweatt v.
...gain ruled in favor of the Establishment Clause. These cases include Murray v. Baltimore School Board, Epperson v. Arkansas, and Stone v. Graham. It also set the grounds for the case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, which set up the “Lemon Test” for deciding if a religious function is Constitutional or not.
Examples of this include the Supreme Court’s ruling on National League of Cities v Usery in 1976, where it was disputed whether the national government had the authority to set a minimum wage standard for the states to follow, in this particular case’s ruling, the Supreme Court decided no, the national government did not have the right to do so. Nine years later the Supreme overturned this previous ruling in the case of Garcia v San Antonio Metro Transit
Judicial Restraint- judges should decide cases on the basis of the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution
People have always been concerned about our judicial system making massive decisions in an undemocratic manner and while there are parts of our nation’s history (Jost). There have been decisions that were dreadful for our nation, Dred Scott v. Sandford; but there are decisions that everyone can agree with in retrospect, Brown v. Board of Education. Also, there are decisions that still divide us as a nation, Bush v. Gore and Roe V. Wade. There are a lot of issues that come from our current judicial system; however, I understand that the problems that come from it are not going to come from any quick fix, and we may have to live with some of them. Looking at the history of the judicial branch of the United States Government, I believe it needs to be limited in its judicial review power, but have certain exceptions where necessary in some cases.
The Roe v. Wade case originated in the state of Texas in 1970 at the suggestion of Sarah Weddington an Austin attorney. Norma McCorvey otherwise known as "Jane Roe" was an unmarried pregnant woman seeking to overturn the anti-abortion law in the state of Texas. The lawsuit claimed that the statue was unconstitutionally vague and abridged privacy rights of pregnant women guaranteed by the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments to the constitution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade)
...it from protecting the rights of minorities and from becoming a true proponent of social change. In conclusion, the Court is a somewhat constrained institution in that it only responds to the demands and whims of society. The Court's dependency upon society for case initiation as well as case enforcement prevents the Court from rendering decisions entirely opposed to societal opinion, thus why the Court can never fully lead social change within the United States. This is why, “at its best the Court operates to confer legitimacy, not simply on the particular and parochial policies of the dominant alliance, but upon the basic patterns of behavior required for the operation of a democracy” (Dahl 295).
Judicial activism is loosely defined as decisions or judgements handed down by judges that take a broad interpretation of the constitution. It is a decision that is more of a reflection of how the judge thinks the law should be interpreted rather than how the law has or was intended to be interpreted. There are many examples of judicial activism; examples include the opinions of Sandra Day O'Connor in the Lynch v. Donnelly and the Wallace v. Jaffree trials. Sandra Day argues for the changing of the First Amendment's ban on "establishment" of religion into a ban on "endorsement" of religion. Others include US v. Kinder where our congress passed legislation that would require a minimum sentence for persons caught distributing more than 10 grams of cocaine. Judge Leval used a weighing method suggested by the sentencing commission rather than the method required by congress. The different method used did not trigger the mandatory sentence whereas the congressional method would have.
Today is our first day of being the leaders, doers, and problem solvers of the future. Those who persevere, who give it their all and approach each day with optimism will ultimately meet success and happiness. Of course, there will be many a failure on that windy road of life, but with dedication, we can do anything and make any dream come true. But, as we grow older and encounter success, we must not forget those who have had it rough, whose lives may have hit some potholes on the way, and we must take care of those who need a helping hand. As each of us leaves our mark on the world, be generous and be happy, and always remember the good times, good friends, and lessons learned at Marefat.
INTRODUCTION: Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus, the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many.