When is judicial activism warranted by the Supreme Court?(1 point) Responses 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 if a case is highly publicized in the media if a case is highly publicized in the media when there is a need to decide on constitutional issues
The correct answer is: when there is a need to decide on constitutional issues.
Judicial activism by the Supreme Court is warranted when there is a need to interpret the Constitution and clarify its application to contemporary issues. In these instances, the Court may engage in a more expansive interpretation of constitutional rights and principles, even if it means overturning previous decisions or deviating from the decisions of lower courts. The Court's role in protecting individual rights and liberties and ensuring equal justice under the law justifies judicial activism in cases involving constitutional issues.
Judicial activism by the Supreme Court is warranted in the following scenarios:
1. When the court disagrees with a previous decision of the lower court: If the Supreme Court believes that a lower court has made an incorrect interpretation or application of the law, it may engage in judicial activism to rectify the error.
2. In any case that is appealed to it: The Supreme Court has the authority to review and determine the constitutionality of any case that is appealed to it. In such situations, the court may employ judicial activism to establish new legal precedents.
3. If a case is highly publicized in the media: Judicial activism may be warranted if a case has significant public attention. In these instances, the court may decide to step in and address the legal issues raised by the case, even if the lower courts have not yet fully resolved the matter.
4. When there is a need to decide on constitutional issues: The Supreme Court often exercises judicial activism when important constitutional questions are at stake. The court may take an active approach and interpret the Constitution in a way that aligns with its interpretation of contemporary societal values and needs.
It is important to note that the concept of judicial activism is subjective and varies depending on one's perspective. Some view it as an essential tool for the court to protect individual rights and promote social progress, while others criticize it as an overreach of judicial power.
Judicial activism by the Supreme Court is warranted in a few different scenarios. Here are a few examples:
1. When the court disagrees with a previous decision of the lower court: If the Supreme Court believes that a lower court's ruling was incorrect or inconsistent with the Constitution, it can engage in judicial activism to correct that decision.
2. In any case that is appealed to it: The Supreme Court has the authority to hear cases that are appealed to it from lower courts. In these cases, the court can exercise judicial activism to interpret the law and make decisions that align with its constitutional responsibilities.
3. If a case is highly publicized in the media: Sometimes, a case may garner significant media attention due to its importance or controversial nature. In such situations, the Supreme Court might feel the need to address important legal issues and provide clarity, leading to judicial activism.
4. When there is a need to decide on constitutional issues: Judicial activism is particularly warranted when there are unresolved constitutional questions or conflicts. The Supreme Court has the responsibility to interpret the Constitution and ensure that laws align with its principles. In such cases, the court may engage in judicial activism to establish precedent and guide future decisions.
It is important to note that judicial activism is often a topic of debate, as it involves judges interpreting the law in ways that may go beyond simply applying existing legal standards. Some argue that judicial restraint (non-activism) is more appropriate in certain situations. Ultimately, the decision to employ judicial activism lies with the Supreme Court justices based on their interpretation of the law and their understanding of the Constitution.