An Analysis of the American Judicial System
Judicial Restraint is the first important doctrine that the Supreme Court deals with. The main basis is that the judiciary should have the utmost of respect for precedence and always look to the judgments that are associated with that of legislatures. Elected officials are the ones who make almost all decisions concerning public issues in cases instead of judges. Judges on the other hand are given the task of weighing out how much legislation and precedent are to be applied in certain cases instead of looking for new methods that alter contested laws.
Two main points come to mind that allies of judicial restraint think highly of. Self-governing is put to the test when the judiciary takes on policy functions that typically would be in possession of elected institutions on the grounds that the policies are not taken care of by the institutions themselves. Restraint is also respected because it keeps essential public support intact for the legitimate long-term courts. Judicial compliance is essential in that the slightest insertion of personal law views can threaten public opinion with the judiciary. A rare occurrence in history of vital decisive judicial action was needed in the cast of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause and school segregation canceled each other out because of their apparent contradiction. Even though racially segregated public schools are not constitutionally prohibited, nobody in their right mind would stand up and say that they would work under the Constitution today. Some cases even leave a question mark for justification concerning some civil rights decisions. Romer v. Evans (1996) is a valid example. The Supreme Court overturned an amendment to the Colorado constitution that disallowed all laws granting homosexuals civil rights protection Colorado voters’ decision should have been upheld in the eyes of Justice Scalia on how much democratic stance it held.
Judicial activism is the second important doctrine that the Supreme Court deals with. This doctrine states that courts should take a comprehensive part in judicial power by interpreting and siding with the law themselves. Up until now, judicial activism was seen as liberal sided. These activists always claimed that fairness should always be exercised when existing law inadequacy is present. Some will argue that the courts should strike positively and swiftly when activist policies of a disadvantage have to depend on social justice.
Many activists will argue that the Constitution is mainly existent to protect from repressive government when the judiciary is willing to act when a failed correction by lawmakers happens. People who side with judicial activism see the Constitution to shield weak individuals and not the narrow rule set that some claim it to be. In the last few years, activism from the right has come into play as in the case of William Rehnquist. He overturned many cases that dealt with the rights of accused individuals. Also on his agenda was asking Congress to restrict the ability of those whom were convicted in state to file a notion in federal court to be released from restraint.
Congress gave the thumbs down for this proposal. Rehnquist eventually achieved success in 1991 by way of a majority in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court and Congress have typically been on the same page in the past but a few congressional acts have been denied by the court. One major case that was they disagreed on was Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents (2000). The courts ruled in this case that state compliance with federal age-discrimination laws could not be enforced by Congress on grounds that age is not included in discrimination stated in the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This ruling was right in line of William Rehnquist’s desire to limit the amount of authority over the states that Congress possessed. To sum it all up, the courage to challenge elected officials and their powers with courts powers is what defines judicial activism.
There is always going to be a difference in hand between judicial activism and restraint. I think it is going to be up to the Supreme Court to which school they decide to have influence their decision. Either way is good so the Supreme Court continues to do their job. Would you not agree?
