Civics Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism - Pagoada 1 Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism The constitution was written almost 300 years ago

Civics Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism - Pagoada 1...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 3 pages.

Pagoada 1 Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism The constitution was written almost 300 years ago. With time, change is inevitable. The way we thought 300 years ago is completely different to the way we think now. Our intentions, our morals, and our thought process and way of thinking 300 years ago is very different compared to today. It is for that reason that there are conflicting views as to how the constitution should be interpreted. There’s two different views. Some people believe in Judicial Restraint. Judicial restraint is the belief that judicial interpretation should be based on the original intent of the framers of the constitution and precedent. Others believe in Judicial Activism. Judicial Activism is the belief that judicial interpretation should be based on the current needs of the nation. The judge places their own personal feelings on what they think the law should be. The Supreme Court has exercised both Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism in their decisions. In the case Fisher v. University of Texas , we see the Supreme Court exercise Judicial Restraint. This case is about a girl who claimed that the University of Texas discriminated against her and that they violated her 14th amendment right. The 14th

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture