I'm struggling with answering this question and I would appreciate any help one could offer. I'm needing to answer the following question in paragraph form:
Which one of these two philosophies do you think the Supreme Court should follow: judicial activism or judicial restraint?
The question is WHAT DO YOU THINK?
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii
Read Section 2 carefully. Make sure you understand what the Supreme Court of the US was created to do.
Then read about judicial activism and judicial restraint and see what you think.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=25657,26637,26993,27026,27031,27032,27035,27037,27042,27144,27151&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=judicial+activism&cp=10&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=g4g-o1&aql=&oq=judicial+a&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=80834014c217cffa
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&expIds=25657,26637,26993,27026,27031,27032,27035,27037,27042,27144,27151&sugexp=ldymls&xhr=t&q=judicial+restraint&cp=12&pf=p&sclient=psy&aq=f&aqi=g4g-o1&aql=&oq=judicial+res&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=80834014c217cffa
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/21725/judicial_activism_and_restraint_the.html
Let us know what you decide.
I support judicial activism because the Constitution was never meant to cover all situations, especially those 200 years later. Think of Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education. Here are other landmark decisions.
http://www.streetlaw.org/en/landmark.aspx
Thank you for your help. I just wasn't sure which direction I really wanted to go. I needed some opinions to just need me in a direction.
1st Amendment help.
How can one argue persuasively that the status quo of Defamation (i.e., New York V. Sullivan) should be changed.
Any help or direction one could give, would be appreciated.
The second most powerful court in the US is the ?
To answer this question, we need to understand the concepts of judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judicial activism refers to a philosophy in which the Supreme Court actively interprets and applies the laws to address current societal needs and promote social change. On the other hand, judicial restraint is a philosophy that suggests the Court should exercise caution and limit its interpretation of the law to the original intent of lawmakers.
To determine which philosophy the Supreme Court should follow, one can analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Judicial activism allows the Court to adapt and respond to evolving societal needs, ensuring that the Constitution remains relevant in modern times. This approach may also help address social injustices and promote equality. However, critics argue that it can lead to judicial overreach, where the Court exceeds its constitutional authority and encroaches on the role of the legislative and executive branches.
On the other hand, judicial restraint advocates argue that the Court should strictly adhere to the original intent of the Constitution and defer to the elected branches of government. This philosophy ensures a more limited and cautious approach to interpreting the law, preserving the separation of powers and preventing judicial activism from replacing the role of lawmakers. However, this approach may hinder progress and fail to address changing societal needs.
Ultimately, the question of whether the Supreme Court should follow a philosophy of judicial activism or judicial restraint depends on one's perspective and political ideology. There is no definitive right or wrong answer as both approaches have their merits and drawbacks. It is crucial to consider the specific circumstances and balance the need for social progress with the preservation of constitutional principles.