Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Judicial activism essay
Judicial Activism And Restraint
Judicial activism general essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Judicial activism essay
Since its first appearance in 1947 in Fortune Magazine, the term Judicial Activism has promoted incandescent debates about the rule of courts in public policy, however to date there is not a consensus of what judicial activism really means. The term may denote a pejorative description of judicial behavior or in other instances the sophisticated elaboration of judicial concepts. (Roosevelt III 2006:1)
Since 1947 the term have been used extensively in magazines, newspapers and law reviews, by 1990 was used in average 450 times a year, appeared in 3815 law review articles and several other publications (Kmiec, 2004). After the election of president Obama the term use of the term have been even more extensive, his two Supreme Court nominees have been labeled with the scarlet letter of activism by respected law gazettes like American Bar Association (ABA) journal and the Northwestern University Law Review. Yet the debate about the meaning of the term remains unclear.
However the involvement of the courts in policy making is not a recent phenomenon as some media outlets aim to portrait. Since the first use of judicial review by the Supreme Court in Marbuty v Madison (1803) the Supreme Court have exercised judicial review to overthrow 160 federal status and more than a 1000 federal laws (Tarr 2009, p258). Some of the most these cases have important legal implication in the defense of fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, (United States vs Nixon 1973), due process (Brown vs Board of Education 1954) and prisoner’s rights (James v Wallace 1974).
Courts are also involved in the defense of civil rights contesting majority ruled decision. Gamble (1997) illustrated this case clearly in her study of court’s rule against referendum mandates affecting minority rights. Gamble stated that between 1959 and 1993 there were 74 ballot measures that clearly targeted minority rights; most of these ballot initiatives deal with issues such as housing segregation, gay rights, school desegregation, English among others.
From the 74 measures mentioned by Gambel, 53 (78 percent) generated a form of repression of exclusion against minority groups. Analyzing this results Gamble argued that “the record show[ed] that American voters readily repeal existing civil rights protections and enthusiastically enact laws that bar their elected representatives from passing new ones. By repeatedly striking down the latter, the judicial system has vigilantly protected the rights of minorities to participate in the political process” (Gambel 1997:262)
Judges have been involved in policy making, not just protecting of civil rights, but in filling the gaps overlooked by the law.
The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
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.
Skepticism about government is, in many respects, part of the DNA of Americans. This skepticism is not without reason – the actions of American politicians in the 1960s and 70s caused much of America to wonder about the motives of elected officials. However, such skepticism is rarely brought up when discussing the government’s participation in denouncing oppression against the African-American community. Most assume the government enforced equal opportunity for minorities out of compassion and humanity. However, much like the other major actions of the government during that era, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a groundbreaking law condemning segregation, was not devoid of personal motives. The Black community was not oblivious to this fact, and voiced its outrage through different mediums. Within the literary community, James Baldwin stands out as an author who especially attacked the government, claiming all the benefits his community was now receiving was not the result of compassion, but rather was the result of politics as usual.
Does the name Jim Crow ring a bell? Neither singer nor actor, but actually the name for the Separate but Equal (Jim Crow) Laws of the 1900s. Separate but Equal Laws stated that businesses and public places had to have separate, but equal, facilities for minorities and Caucasian people. Unfortunately, they usually had different levels of maintenance or quality. Lasting hatred from the civil war, and anger towards minorities because they took jobs in the north probably set the foundation for these laws, but it has become difficult to prove. In this essay, I will explain how the Separate but Equal Laws of twentieth century America crippled minorities of that time period forever.
“We live in the greatest nation on Planet Earth, but it is becoming more and more apparent that in order to keep it, the people must do something to stop the federal courts that are daily setting themselves above the law and dictating to us how we should live, and what we should think” (Sutherland M. et al p. 9, 2007) Those are the beginning words of the preface to the book Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America. The work expounds upon the idea that there is something fundamentally wrong with our country’s judicial system, especially when it comes to the Supreme Court. The main idea behind the book is that an unelected judicial branch has taken upon itself new powers and is legislating from the court bench without regard to the general consent of the people and our Constitutional process. The entire book comes from very Christian world vi...
In the early years of the Constitution the legislative and executive branches held the power to establish and enforce any laws. This was prevalent up until the Marbury v. Madison case in 1803. John Marshall, as the Chief Justice during the case, declared that the Judicial Act of 1801, appointing numerous federalist “midnight judges” to judicial positions in the government, was unconstitutional. By overruling a law passed by Congress itself, Marshall was able to prove the Supreme Court as a center of power that can even have precedence over Congress, the President, and all other courts if it is necessary to determine constitutionality. Also known as Judicial Review, this power was the base on which John Marshall build up the Supreme Court to be respected and equal to the other branches. The power of the Supreme Court and federal law was continued into the next major case, Fletcher v. Peck. When Georgia wanted the land they gave to the Yazoo Company back after elections, their government brought it to court. John Marshall and the Supreme Court declared that land grant contracts cannot be repealed and made contracts “sacred”. Marshall utilized the power of the Supreme Court to overrule the decision made by Georgia. The establishment of Judicial Review is prevalent in the outcome of Fletcher v. Peck in that the federal judiciary
Despite the 14th and 15th constitutional amendments that guarantee citizenship and voting right regardless of race and religion, southern states, in practice, denied African Americans the right to vote by setting up literacy tests and charging a poll tax that was designed only to disqualify them as voters. In 1955, African Americans still had significantly less political power than their white counterparts. As a result, they were powerless to prevent the white from segregating all aspects of their lives and could not stop racial discrimination in public accommodations, education, and economic opportunities. Following the 1954 Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown vs. Board of Education that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, it remained a hot issue in 1955. That year, however, it was the murder of the fourteen-year-old Emmett Louis Till that directed the nation’s attention to the racial discrimination in America.
Palmer, Elizabeth A. "The Court and Public Opinion." CQ Weekly 2 Dec. 2000. CQ Weekly. SAGE Publications. Web. 1 Mar. 2000. .
Such precedent setting decisions are usually derived from the social, economic, political, and legal philosophy of the majority of the Justices who make up the Court, and also represent a segment of the American population at a given time in history. Seldom has a Supreme Court decision sliced so deeply into the basic fabric that composes the tapestry and direction of American law or instigated such profound changes in cherished rights, values, and personal prerogatives of individuals: the right to privacy, the structure of the family, the status of medical technology and its impact upon law and life, and the authority of state governments to protect the lives of their citizens.(3-4)
Toward the end of the Progressive Era American social inequality had stripped African Americans of their rights on a local and national level. In the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessey vs. Ferguson, the Supreme Court sided with a Louisiana state law declaring segregation constitutional as long as facilities remain separate but equal. Segregation increased as legal discriminatory laws became enacted by each state but segregated facilities for whites were far superior to those provided for blacks; especially prevalent in the South were discriminatory laws known as Jim Crow laws which surged after the ruling. Such laws allowed for segregation in places such as restaurants, hospitals, parks, recreational areas, bathrooms, schools, transportation, housing, hotels, etc. Measures were taken to disenfranchise African Americans by using intimidation, violence, putting poll taxes, and literacy tests. This nearly eliminated the black vote and its political interests as 90% of the nine million blacks in America lived in the South and 1/3 were illiterate as shown in Ray Stannard Baker’s Following the Color Line (Bailey 667). For example, in Louisiana 130,334 black voters registered in 1896 but that number drastically decreased to a mere 1,342 in 1904—a 99 percent decline (Newman ). Other laws prevented black...
One of the Judicial Branch’s many powers is the power of judicial review. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to decide whether or not the other branches of governments’ actions are constitutional or not. This power is very important because it is usually the last hope of justice for many cases. This also allows the court to overturn lower courts’ rulings. Cases like Miranda v. Arizona gave Miranda justice for having his rules as a citizen violated. The court evalutes whether any law was broken then makes their ruling. Also, the Weeks v. United States case had to be reviewed by the court because unlawful searches and siezures were conducted by officers. One of the most famous cases involving judicial review was the Plessey v. Ferguson
In 1803, the decision in Marbury v Madison held that the Supreme Court had the ability to practice the process of judicial review. With this ruling, the Court gave itself the power to deem legislation constitutional or unconstitutional. With this bolstered power, the Supreme Court made numerous landmark decisions throughout the 19th and during the first half of the 20th centuries. The Supreme Court’s power of judicial review played an integral role in shaping post-bellum racial laws and attitudes. In the cases of Plessey v. Ferguson and Brown v. The Board of Education the Supreme Court invoked judicial review to assess racial segregation policies as they related to the 14th Amendment. Both Plessey and Brown are landmark cases because they reflected the social climate of their respective time periods, because both cases had immediate impact upon civil rights law and everyday life in America, and because both cases affected basic interpretation of the Constitution.
Restraint and Activism Judicial activism is loosely defined as decisions or judgements handed down by judges that take a broad interpretation of the constitution. It is a decision that is more of a reflection of how the judge thinks the law should be interpreted, rather than how the law has or was intended to be interpreted. There are many examples of judicial activism; examples include the opinions of Sandra Day O'Connor in the Lynch v. Donnelly and the Wallace v. Jaffree trials. Sandra Day argues for the changing of the First Amendment's ban on "establishment" of religion into a ban on "endorsement" of religion. Others include the U.S. v. Kinder, where Congress passed legislation that would require a minimum sentence for persons caught distributing more than 10 grams of cocaine.
Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343. Reynolds, S. (2009). The 'Standard'. An interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The Supreme Court was important in both suppressing and aiding the Civil Rights Movement. However, decisions taken by the President, the continued white opposition and improvements in media communications also had an effect. Although all were important, the Civil Rights movement alone would have reached the same end without the help of the Supreme Court, and the devotion of its many members and leaders is the major factor in advancing Civil Rights.