When is judicial activism warranted by the Supreme Court?(1 point)
Responses
when there is a need to decide on constitutional issues
when there is a need to decide on constitutional issues
in any case that is appealed to it
in any case that is appealed to it
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
The correct answer is: when there is a need to decide on constitutional issues. Judicial activism is warranted by the Supreme Court when there is a need to interpret the Constitution and make decisions on constitutional issues. This may include cases that are appealed to the Court or cases where the Court disagrees with a previous decision of a lower court. The publicity of a case in the media is not a determining factor for when judicial activism is warranted.
Judicial activism refers to instances where judges interpret and apply the law in a way that goes beyond the original intent or plain meaning of the law. Whether judicial activism is warranted or not is subjective and can vary depending on one's perspective.
In general, judicial activism is often argued to be warranted by the Supreme Court in cases where there is a need to decide on constitutional issues. The Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of the Constitution, and it has the power to interpret and define its meaning. When there are gray areas or conflicting interpretations of the Constitution, the Supreme Court may engage in judicial activism to clarify or expand constitutional rights.
Another situation where judicial activism may be warranted is when the Supreme Court receives an appeal of a case. The Court's primary role is to review cases on appeal and ensure that the lower courts applied the law correctly. In cases where there are significant legal issues or novel constitutional questions, the Court may need to engage in judicial activism to provide guidance and establish legal precedents.
However, it's important to note that judicial activism should not be based on media attention or public opinion. The Supreme Court's decisions should be guided by the Constitution and the rule of law, rather than popular sentiment or media coverage. Similarly, disagreement with a previous decision of a lower court may not automatically justify judicial activism. The Court should consider legal reasoning, precedent, and the overall impact on constitutional interpretation before engaging in judicial activism.
In summary, while the circumstances for judicial activism can vary, it is generally warranted when there is a need to address constitutional issues or when significant legal questions are raised in cases that are appealed to the Supreme Court.