When is judicial activism warranted by the Supreme Court?
A. when there is no need to decide on constitutional issues
B. if there is a case where the court disagrees with a previous decision of the lower court
C. in any case that is appealed to it
D. if a case is highly publicized in the media
B. if there is a case where the court disagrees with a previous decision of the lower court
Judicial activism by the Supreme Court is warranted in certain situations where the interpretation of the Constitution is required to address current issues and protect fundamental rights. It is not directly related to whether a case is appealed to the Court or highly publicized in the media. Therefore, the correct answer would be:
B. if there is a case where the court disagrees with a previous decision of the lower court.
To determine when judicial activism may be warranted by the Supreme Court, it is essential to understand the concept of judicial activism. Judicial activism refers to when judges interpret the law in a way that extends beyond the plain meaning of the text or precedents and is often driven by their own personal beliefs or ideologies.
The question specifically asks for instances where judicial activism is warranted by the Supreme Court. While the answer is subjective and can vary depending on different perspectives, it is generally agreed that judicial activism may be justified in certain circumstances, including:
B. If there is a case where the court disagrees with a previous decision of the lower court: In some situations, the Supreme Court may believe that a lower court's decision was incorrect or failed to uphold fundamental constitutional principles. In such cases, the Supreme Court may engage in judicial activism to overturn or modify the lower court's decision.
C. In any case that is appealed to it: The Supreme Court has the authority to hear appeals on a wide range of legal issues. If the Court decides to hear a case that raises significant constitutional questions or presents an opportunity to shape policy, it may engage in judicial activism to address those issues.
However, it is important to note that judicial activism is a controversial concept, and opinions on when it is warranted may differ among legal scholars, judges, and practitioners. Some believe that judges should generally adhere to a strict interpretation of the law and exercise judicial restraint, while others argue that judges should actively interpret and apply the law in light of changing societal norms and values.
Ultimately, whether judicial activism is warranted depends on one's perspective and understanding of the role of the judiciary in a democratic society. It is an ongoing debate in legal and constitutional scholarship.