Judicial Restraint and Activism

Judicial Restraint and Activism - Since the beginning of...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Since the beginning of our Constitution there have been two separate ideas explored in the Supreme Court. These ideas consist of judicial restraint and judicial activism. When speaking of these matters some feel that one holds a higher being over the other due to the way in which they are used in the Supreme Court. The judicial branch of the U.S. government is known as the law making division and while some feel that their decisions may not always be proper, as a whole this branch has created a high standard of living. While looking at the basis of “liberal” judicial activism it is known to be the idea that one can conform a modern way of the constitution. On the other hand the conservative view of judicial restraint is the idea that the constitution is interpreted strictly. Due to the constant battle of which idea is more effective, the debate over these two policies still raises much controversy in the U.S. Court system today. According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law judicial activism is "the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This essay was uploaded on 04/21/2008 for the course RPOS 101Y taught by Professor Miroff during the Spring '08 term at SUNY Albany.

Page1 / 3

Judicial Restraint and Activism - Since the beginning of...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online