When is judicial activism warranted by the Supreme Court?(1 point)
Responses
if a case is highly publicized in the media
if a case is highly publicized in the media
if there is a case where the court disagrees with a previous decision of the lower court
if there is a case where the court disagrees with a previous decision of the lower court
in any case that is appealed to it
in any case that is appealed to it
when there is a need to decide on constitutional issues
when there is a need to decide on constitutional issues
when there is a need to decide on constitutional issues
When is judicial activism warranted by the Supreme Court?
Judicial activism is the concept of courts going beyond their traditional role of interpreting and applying the law, and instead actively shaping or influencing public policy. The question of when it is warranted by the Supreme Court is subjective and can vary depending on different perspectives.
However, there are some situations where judicial activism might be considered warranted:
1. If a case is highly publicized in the media: In certain cases that capture significant attention from the public and the media, the Supreme Court might feel compelled to address concerns and controversies arising from the case. This could lead to a more active and engaged approach by the court.
2. If there is a case where the court disagrees with a previous decision of the lower court: If the Supreme Court sees a lower court decision as incorrect or flawed, it might decide to take a more active role in shaping the law and correcting any perceived errors in the interpretation or application of the law.
3. In any case that is appealed to it: The Supreme Court has the authority to decide which cases to hear on appeal. If a case involves important legal and constitutional issues or carries significant national implications, the court might choose to take a more activist stance in order to provide clarity and guidance on the matter.
4. When there is a need to decide on constitutional issues: Judicial activism can be warranted when there are unresolved constitutional issues that need interpretation or clarification. The court might feel the need to actively engage in shaping constitutional law to ensure consistency and protect the rights and liberties of individuals.
It's important to note that judicial activism is a controversial concept, and different individuals and legal scholars may have differing opinions on its appropriateness in various scenarios. Ultimately, the determination of when judicial activism is warranted is a complex issue, and the Supreme Court must carefully consider the specific circumstances of each case before taking an active role.