Governing Institutions
What constitutes an appropriate role for the judiciary? Some people argue that courts have become too powerful and that judges legislate from the bench. What does it mean for a court to be activist? What does it mean for a court to show judicial restraint? Although conservatives have long complained about the activism of liberal justices and judges, in recent years liberals have pointed out that conservative judges and justices are now more likely to overturn precedents and question the power of elected institutions of government. Conservatives counter by saying they are simply returning to an older precedent that had been ignored by liberals. If both liberals and conservatives engage in judicial activism, what is the role of the concept of “activism” (perhaps judicial activism is just a term used to describe a court decision you disagree with)? must be 1000 words
Sample Solution
The judiciary is one of the three branches of government in a democratic society. Its role is to interpret the law and to apply the law to individual cases. The judiciary is also responsible for ensuring that the other branches of government do not violate the law.Full Answer Section
he appropriate role of the judiciary is a matter of debate. Some people believe that the judiciary should be a passive branch of government that simply interprets the law as it is written. Others believe that the judiciary should be a more active branch of government that is willing to strike down laws that it believes are unconstitutional. There are a number of arguments in favor of a more active judiciary. One argument is that the judiciary is the only branch of government that is not directly elected by the people. This gives the judiciary a certain degree of independence from the other branches of government, which can be helpful in ensuring that the law is applied fairly and impartially. Another argument in favor of a more active judiciary is that the judiciary is the only branch of government that is specifically tasked with interpreting the law. This means that the judiciary has a unique expertise in understanding the meaning of the law and in applying the law to individual cases. However, there are also a number of arguments against a more active judiciary. One argument is that judges are not elected by the people, and therefore they should not have the power to make laws. Another argument is that an active judiciary can lead to judicial overreach, which can undermine the authority of the other branches of government. The terms "activist" and "judicial restraint" are often used to describe different approaches to judicial decision-making. An activist court is a court that is willing to strike down laws that it believes are unconstitutional. A court that shows judicial restraint is a court that is more likely to defer to the decisions of the other branches of government. There is no single definition of what it means for a court to be activist. However, some of the characteristics of an activist court include:- A willingness to strike down laws that it believes are unconstitutional.
- A willingness to overturn precedent.
- A willingness to interpret the law in a way that expands the rights of individuals.
- The judiciary should be independent from the other branches of government. This means that judges should not be influenced by political considerations when making decisions.
- The judiciary should be impartial. This means that judges should not let their personal beliefs or biases influence their decisions.
- The judiciary should be fair. This means that judges should treat all parties to a case equally and should not favor one side over the other.