The Judiciary

Sample Solution

Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy that holds that judges should interpret the law in a way that promotes social justice and change. Judicial activists believe that the law is not static, but rather a living document that must be interpreted in light of the changing needs of society. As such, they are willing to strike down laws that they believe are unjust or outdated, even if those laws have been upheld by previous courts.

Examples of judicial activism:

• In the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine, which had allowed for racial segregation in public schools. The Court held that segregation was inherently unequal and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Full Answer Section

• In the case of Roe v. Wade (1973), the Supreme Court recognized a woman's constitutional right to have an abortion. The Court held that this right is protected by the right to privacy, which is implicit in the Bill of Rights.
• In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The Court held that the right to marry is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to same-sex couples.

Judicial restraint is a judicial philosophy that holds that judges should interpret the law in a way that is faithful to the original intent of the lawmakers. Judicial restraints believe that the role of the judiciary is to interpret the law, not to make law. As such, they are reluctant to strike down laws, even if they believe those laws are unjust or outdated.

Examples of judicial restraint:

• In the case of Bush v. Gore (2000), the Supreme Court halted the recount of votes in Florida, effectively deciding the 2000 presidential election. The Court held that the recount violated the Equal Protection Clause because it did not provide a uniform standard for counting votes.
• In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on corporate political spending. The Court held that the First Amendment protects the right of corporations to spend money on elections.
• In the case of Shelby County v. Holder (2013), the Supreme Court struck down a key provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Court held that the provision, which required certain states to obtain preclearance from the federal government before changing their voting laws, was no longer necessary because the conditions that had justified it had changed.

Which judicial behavior best serves the country?

The question of which judicial behavior best serves the country is a matter of opinion. Some people believe that judicial activism is necessary to ensure that the law is just and that it reflects the changing needs of society. Others believe that judicial restraint is necessary to ensure that the law is stable and that it is not subject to the whims of individual judges.

There is no easy answer to this question. Both judicial activism and judicial restraint have their own strengths and weaknesses. Ultimately, the best judicial behavior is that which is guided by a commitment to justice and the rule of law.