The Difference between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

The Difference between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

Our American judiciary branch of the federal government has contributed and molded our American beliefs in this great nation. This branch of government is respected because of the code of conduct that the judges, no matter how conservative or liberal. The language of the court as well as the uniform of the cloaks that judges wear has most probably contributed towards this widespread respect. Throughout the history of the United States, I noticed a pattern of "cause and effect" that our judiciary branch had practiced. I noticed that the judicial branch usually restrain themselves from involving in critical civil policy, but will be active when the time comes when the general public, in which the case is decided, feels a change is needed. We have enough evidence to see how our judicial branch should act. Should the judicial branch be more active towards shaping American policy or restrain as long as possible before being forced to act upon very critical civil policies?

Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court should be an active and creative partner with the legislative and executive branches in shaping government policy (Wasserman American Politics 138). The believers of this philosophical view of how our judicial branch should be suggest that the Supreme Court more active and participate in molding the policies of American society. It can be argued that during the end of the Civil War and the "Separate but Equal" era, in cases such as the Brown v. Board of Education, Baker v. Carr, Missouri ex. Rel. Gaines v. Canada, and Sweatt v. Painter. The more recent, Bush v. Gore case is a fine example of judicial activism.

Judicial Restraint, on t...

... middle of paper ...

...either the other branches of government nor by the general public. I also believe that if the judicial branch, by staying away from politics, is in the rightful position to save the country from political embarrassment, such as the verdict of Bush v. Gore, when the United States could not even decide whom her leader would be. Furthermore, if a case regarding the actions of the executive branch during the period after the tragic incident of September 11th, I feel that the judicial branch should back the President and his decision, so people of other nations would consider our country to be very united. Finally, I think that by being restrained, any decision that is made is more justified, because the decision of prior courts' had prove that its verdict has indeed sour the social justice of civil liberty.

Bibliography:

Wassenberg American Politics