Should Court Practice Deference Summary

244 Words1 Page
bulb-icon

Recommended: Constitutional Law ; Checks & Balances

Arvin, I enjoyed reading your analysis of Breyer’s article regarding when courts should participate in the practice of deference. I agree with you regarding your analysis of when courts should practice deference. I would like to add a couple more points to your argument. The Constitution, set up by our founding fathers, gives a system of checks and balances to the government in order to balance the powers among different branches of government. The system of checks and balances that we have, prevents one branch of government from overstepping its bounds. When a court practices deference, they are participating in the system of checks and balances because they are allowing another branch of government to help answer a question that they are

Show More
Related

  • Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

    468 Words  | 1 Pages

    Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint 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. Marbury v. Madison, one of the first Supreme Court cases asserting the power of judicial review, is an effective argument for this power; however, it lacks direct textual basis for the decision. John Marshall managed to get away with this deficiency because of the silence on many issues and the vague wording of the Constitution. Marshall was also the first to interpret the Constitution loosely, also known as judicial activism.

    Read More

  • Compare And Contrast United States V. Leon

    716 Words  | 2 Pages

    The dissenting opinion was given by Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall. Their concerns were that the majority opinion may be the beginning of the exclusionary rule slipping away. Brennon had observed that the Court had slowly began to let more things slide against the Fourth Amendment, and that the ?good faith? exception directly contradicted the Fourth Amendment. He also held that it may seem that the Court may pick and choose what evidence it allows in interest of obtaining a conviction. (United States v. Leon , 1984)

    Read More

  • The Attitudinal Model Of Judicial Decision Making

    705 Words  | 2 Pages

    The first model to the judicial decision making is the attitudinal model. This model of judicial decision making speculates that a judge’s behavior can be predicted mostly by his or her policy attitudes. It perceives judges of the court as motivated by policy goals and unconstrained by the law. Therefore, they decide cases according to moral preference rather than by the meaning or intention of legal texts. One review of the attitudinal model is the fact it relied heavily on unreliable evidence. Also, the attitudinal model of decision making does not always interpret from explaining justice’s decisions at the Supreme Court. Most legal practitioners such as lawyers and judges are likely to think that a very simple attitudinal model is missing

    Read More

  • Flagiello Vs Pennsylvania

    1314 Words  | 3 Pages

    “The principle of stare decisis does not demand that we must follow precedents, which shipwreck justice.”

    Read More

  • Judicial Review: Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton

    1059 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...ice it when the said sources contain no clear information regarding the topic at hand. In situations like these, the Supreme Court is essentially free to do whatever it wishes, and often exercises judicial activism. Thus, there is a disconnect that exists between the theoretical practice of judicial review, which is reasonable and justifiable, and the actual practice of judicial review that is often used in the Supreme Court, which may potentially allow the Judiciary to surpass the powers granted to it in the Constitution and as stated by Hamilton in Federalist 78. There are two main sides to the debate about how Justices should approach judicial review: the strict constructionists, who advocate for strict adherence to the text of the Constitution when deciding a case, and the loose constructionists, who advocate for more freedom for the judges when deciding a case.

    Read More

  • Judicial Review of the Warren Court

    1556 Words  | 4 Pages

    When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at the commencement of each school day. In cases that do not regard whether an action is constitutional or not, the judiciary should suppress their power of judicial review.

    Read More

  • Judicial Activism And Judicial Restraint Analysis

    1072 Words  | 3 Pages

    Judicial Restraint- judges should decide cases on the basis of the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution

    Read More

  • The Second Challenge: Imperial Judiciary

    1279 Words  | 3 Pages

    People have always been concerned about our judicial system making massive decisions in an undemocratic manner and while there are parts of our nation’s history (Jost). There have been decisions that were dreadful for our nation, Dred Scott v. Sandford; but there are decisions that everyone can agree with in retrospect, Brown v. Board of Education. Also, there are decisions that still divide us as a nation, Bush v. Gore and Roe V. Wade. There are a lot of issues that come from our current judicial system; however, I understand that the problems that come from it are not going to come from any quick fix, and we may have to live with some of them. Looking at the history of the judicial branch of the United States Government, I believe it needs to be limited in its judicial review power, but have certain exceptions where necessary in some cases.

    Read More

  • The Power of Judicial Review

    1111 Words  | 3 Pages

    Brutus’ concerns in his eleventh and twelfth letters are most similar to the circumstances that existed at the time of Marbury v. Madison. Although the case did limit the court’s power in one way, it established the much larger and more significant power of judicial review. Marshall declared that it is the duty of the judiciary to decide what the law is and to resolve any conflict between two laws.

    Read More

  • The Marshall Court

    1506 Words  | 4 Pages

    The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican government, he and his fellow justices sought to perpetuate their Federalist principles in the United States’ court system. In one of the most memorable court cases of all time--the case of Marbury v. Madison-- Marshall established the idea of judicial review and strengthened the power of the judicial branch in the government. Abiding by his Federalist ideals, Marshall decided cases that would explicitly limit the power of the state government and broaden the strengths of the national government. Lastly, the Marshall Court was infamous for determining the results of cases that dealt with the interpretation of the Constitution and the importance of contracts in American society. The Marshall Court, over the span of a mere three decades, managed to influence the life of every American citizen even to this day by impacting the development of the judicial branch, establishing a boundary between the state and national government, and making declarations on the sanctity of contracts ("The Marshall Court"...

    Read More

  • Judicial Activism: Threat to Canadian Democracy and Freedom

    1748 Words  | 4 Pages

    In his novel, “Against Judicial Activism: The Decline of Freedom and Democracy in Canada,” author Rory Leishman explains how judges are essentially “let loose” on the judicial system, and are given freedom to create and interpret any laws they wish, right under society’s nose. Leishman writes, “Today, Canadians are living in a quasi-Orwellian nightmare, where freedom often means slavery and ignorance strengthens activist judges.” Judicial activism, in essence, can be described as the following: “. . . the tendency of courts to invalidate laws enacted by duly elected legislatures, since doing so ostensibly amounts to courts usurping the role of Parliament.” With such inconsistency in judges’ conclusions, the concept that citizens have no power

    Read More

  • Pros And Cons Of Judicial Review

    1015 Words  | 3 Pages

    views as to whether or not Judicial review, and the Supreme Court as a whole,

    Read More

  • Judicial Review

    689 Words  | 2 Pages

    It is important to understand the classic debate of Yates v. Hamilton in order to comprehend the context of judicial review in American democracy. Robert Yates was an anti-federalist and judge of the New York Supreme Court who advocated that judicial review was not consistent with the spirit of democratic government. He refused to allow the judicial branch the last word over constitutional interpretation. In his paper, Brutus #11, he contended that the power of the judicial branch would be superior to that of the legislature is the Supreme Court acted as final arbiter of the constitution’s meaning, thus “this power in the judicial, will enable them to mould the government, into almost any shape they please. — The manner in which this may be effected we will hereafter examine” (Yates). Yates, above all, believed that the constitution is the mediator between the public and their elected officials. On the other hand, federalist Alexander Hamilton defended the legitimacy of judicial review as the “least dangerous branch” of government. He explained the legitimate status of the courts through the system of checks and balances. Ham...

    Read More

  • Judges Must Make Law

    2340 Words  | 5 Pages

    INTRODUCTION: Parliament, the supreme law-making body, has unrestricted legislative power, and the laws it passes cannot be set aside by the courts. The role of judges, in relation to laws enacted by Parliament, is to interpret and apply them, rather than to pass judgment on whether they are good or bad laws. However, evidence has shown that they have a tendency to deviate from their ‘real roles’ and instead formulate laws on their own terms. Thus, the real role of a judge in any legal system continues to be a phenomenon questioned by many.

    Read More

  • Arguments Against Judicial Activism

    523 Words  | 2 Pages

    The term ‘judicial activism’ means a court decision suspected of being built or based on individual, political or private reflections instead of the actual law. In America, judicial activism is considered either as conventional or as plentiful. The original retro of American legitimate antiquity was categorized by traditional justice involvement where the Central Supreme Law court was reluctant to allow the conditions or the assembly to permit lawmaking that would control social or financial businesses. Judges should not read between the lines or add their own experiences when it comes to determining what the verdict will be. The United States Constitution is direct, with plainly written sentences and all judges should follow those guidelines.

    Read More

More about Should Court Practice Deference Summary

Open Document