Judicial Activism

Judicial activism is a philosophy of judicial interpretation that holds that judges have a responsibility to interpret the law in a way that advances social change and promotes justice. Judicial activists believe that judges should not be limited to interpreting the law as it is written, but should also consider the intent of the law, the evolving needs of society, and the principles of justice.

Examples of judicial activism:

• In the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court struck down racial segregation in public schools. This was a landmark decision that overturned decades of precedent and had a profound impact on American society.
• In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court ruled that women have a constitutional right to abortion. This decision was also highly controversial and has been the subject of much debate.
• In the 2010 case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court struck down restrictions on corporate political spending. This decision has been criticized for giving corporations too much influence in the political process.

Judicial Restraint

Judicial restraint is a philosophy of judicial interpretation that holds that judges should interpret the law as it is written, without regard to their own personal beliefs or policy preferences. Judicial restraintists believe that judges should not be activists, but should instead defer to the legislature to make policy.

Examples of judicial restraint:

• In the 1937 case of West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, the Supreme Court upheld a minimum wage law. This was a major departure from the Court’s previous rulings on economic regulation. However, the Court justified its decision by arguing that the law was a reasonable exercise of the state’s police power.
• In the 1957 case of Cooper v. Aaron, the Supreme Court ordered the desegregation of public schools in Little Rock, Arkansas. However, the Court also made it clear that it was not imposing its own views on the issue, but was simply enforcing the law as it had been interpreted in Brown v. Board of Education.
• In the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court stopped the recount of votes in Florida, effectively deciding the outcome of the presidential election. The Court’s decision was based on its interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Which Judicial Behavior Best Serves the Country?

The question of which judicial behavior best serves the country is a complex one. There are strong arguments to be made on both sides of the issue.

Proponents of judicial activism argue that it is necessary to ensure that the law remains relevant to the needs of society. They argue that judges should not be afraid to overturn outdated precedents or to interpret the law in a way that promotes justice. They also argue that judicial activism can be a necessary check on the power of the other two branches of government.

Proponents of judicial restraint argue that it is important for judges to respect the will of the legislature. They argue that judges should not substitute their own views for the law as it has been written. They also argue that judicial restraint helps to maintain the separation of powers and prevents the judiciary from becoming too powerful.

Ultimately, the question of which judicial behavior best serves the country is a matter of opinion. There is no easy answer. However, it is important to be aware of the different arguments on both sides of the issue in order to form an informed opinion.