Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

614 Words2 Pages

Judicial Activism is the Supreme Court’s willingness to use its powers to make significant changes in public policy or creatively [re]interpret the texts of the constitution. Judicial Restraint is the Supreme Court’s willingness to limit the use and extent of its power avoid making significant changes in public policy. These two terms designate opposite approaches on how the judges interpret the constitution and public policy for different cases. For example, Miranda vs. Arizona, on March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix Police Department for the conviction of kidnapping and rape of 18 year old girl, after hours of interrogation Miranda finally confessed to the rape charge, this statement was written and recorded, Miranda was then sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda then appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, stating that the police had unconstitutionally retrieved his statement, the court disagreed and upheld the conviction. Miranda then decided to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, who reviewed the case in 1966. The prosecution could not propose Mi...

Show More
Related

  • Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

    468 Words  | 1 Pages

    Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposing philosophies when it comes to the Supreme Court justices' interpretations of the United States Constitution; justices appointed by the President to the Supreme Court serve for life,and thus whose decisions shape the lives of "We the people" for a long time to come.

    Read More

  • Ernesto Miranda's Case Of Miranda Vs. Arizona

    813 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Supreme Court ruled that due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination Clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect has been made aware to his rights and the suspect had then waived them

    Read More

  • Judicial Review: Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton

    1059 Words  | 3 Pages

    In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Miranda Vs Arizona

    716 Words  | 2 Pages

    Miranda Vs Arizona was a United States Supreme Court case in 1966. The court “ruled that a criminal suspect must make a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decision to waive certain constitutional rights prior to questioning” (Ortmeier, 2005, 285). This ruling meant that suspects must be aware of their right to remain silent and that if they choose to speak to the police the conversation can be used against them in a court of law. If they do decide to speak under police it must not be under false promises

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of The Tenth Amendment

    1382 Words  | 3 Pages

    Examples of this include the Supreme Court’s ruling on National League of Cities v Usery in 1976, where it was disputed whether the national government had the authority to set a minimum wage standard for the states to follow, in this particular case’s ruling, the Supreme Court decided no, the national government did not have the right to do so. Nine years later the Supreme overturned this previous ruling in the case of Garcia v San Antonio Metro Transit

    Read More

  • The Monroe Doctrine Was A Bold Statement Of American Foreign Policy

    1234 Words  | 3 Pages

    The first court case I will talk about is McCulloch vs maryland. This case was about America’s ability to tax the property of government buildings. Maryland was taxing a government bank that was owned by McCulloch. McCulloch didn 't agree with this ruling and refused to pay the tax. This case went to the Supreme Court. The Court agreed with McCollugh and cre...

    Read More

  • False Confessions and the Norfolk Four Case

    2738 Words  | 6 Pages

    Elsen, Sheldon, and Arthur Rosett. “Protections for the Suspect under Miranda v. Arizona.” Columbia Law Review 67.4 (1967): 645-670. Web. 10 January 2014.

    Read More

  • Ernesto Miranda Trial

    831 Words  | 2 Pages

    ...hrough or not, they were dealing with a similar case in which the suspect won with 5 of 9 justices agreeing. The Arizona courts denied Miranda’s appeal so he remained in jail. His last chance appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, but he could not afford the $100 fee needed to do so. He sent in the papers only to have them returned because of improper papers. He resent it without the money to see if the supreme court would listen to his petition. While waiting for a response from the Supreme Court, Miranda was joined by JJ FF and FF NN. Frank’s strong point was the U.S. Constitution and NN’s was criminal law. Many Months had passed until the Supreme Court responded and the lawyers worked on the brief during this time. Towards the end of February of 1966, the legal group in which represented Miranda appeared before the supreme court to make their spoken arguments.

    Read More

  • Miranda vs. Arizona

    396 Words  | 1 Pages

    Miranda vs. Arizona was a case that considered the rights of the defendants in criminal cases in regards to the power of the government.

    Read More

  • Judicial Activism And Judicial Restraint Analysis

    1072 Words  | 3 Pages

    The difference between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint is that Judicial Activism courts interpret the law loosely and will create a new precedent if need be, especially when pertaining to cases dealing with civil rights and social welfare. Judicial Restraint courts take the law strictly and make their decision based on how the law is stated in the Constitution.

    Read More

  • Miranda Rights

    1348 Words  | 3 Pages

    Miranda v Arizona went all the way to the Supreme Court. There the Supreme Court ruled that the police do have a responsibility to inform a subject of an interrogation of their constitutional rights. The constitutional rights have to do with self-incrimination, and the right to counsel before, during and after questioning.

    Read More

  • Power Of Judicial Review: Miranda V. Arizona

    1014 Words  | 3 Pages

    The court determines whether on not an action is constitutional or not through the process of judicial review. Not only do they keep the Legislative and Executive branch in line, they keep other courts in line. Many and very few cases require the Supreme Court to review and overturn decision. Example are the Miranda v. Arizona cases where the police was in the wrong by violating Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment therefore ruling in Miranda’s favor. Also the Weeks v. United States case was an example of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment being violated was again ruling in the defendent’s favour. Finally, the Plessey v. Furguson case was a little different really displaying the courts power to interpret laws and ruling in the prosecuter’s favour. The Judicial Branch is certainly not the weakest branch and has a more important role than many people

    Read More

  • Miranda V. Arizona

    543 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Arizona Supreme Court upheld the conviction and the case was brought before the Supreme Court of the United States with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The case was discussed between February 28 and March 1, 1966 before the Court of Warren. The Chief Justice, Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion on behalf of himself and judges Hugo Black, William Douglas, William Brennan Jr. and Abe Fortas. The supreme judge John Marshall Harlan wrote the dissenting opinion and was joined by judges Porter Stewart and Byron White. Judge Tom Clark wrote a concurring opinion against. During oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the Miranda case centered around whether were not violated or the rights of the Fifth Amendment of Miranda against self-incrimination and the rights of the Sixth Amendment to consult a lawyer before make

    Read More

  • Restraint and Activism

    379 Words  | 1 Pages

    Judicial restraint is loosely defined as decisions or judgements that take a narrow interpretation of the constitution. It reflects a respect for the law as it has been enacted by the Legislature. Rather than creating new laws from broad interpretations. For myself, it is somewhat harder to distinguish what judicial restraint is. An example of judicial restraint would be the 1996 case of Bowers v. Hardwick. Hardwick was charged with violating the Georgia statute of sodomy by committing a sexual act with another male in the bedroom of his home.

    Read More

  • Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker

    829 Words  | 2 Pages

    The significant impact Robert Dahl’s article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker” created for our thought on the Supreme Court it that it thoroughly paved the way towards exemplifying the relationship between public opinion and the United States Supreme Court. Dahl significantly was able to provide linkages between the Supreme Court and the environment that surrounds it in order for others to better understand the fundamental aspects that link the two together and explore possible reasoning and potential outcomes of the Court.

    Read More

More about Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

Open Document