When is Judical activism warranted by the Supreme Court
A. 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
C. When there is a need to decide on constitutional issues
D. In any case that is appealed to it
C. When there is a need to decide on constitutional issues
Judicial activism refers to the actions taken by a court, particularly the Supreme Court, in interpreting and applying the law in a way that goes beyond or deviates from the traditional role of the judiciary. While there are differing opinions on when judicial activism is warranted, it is generally agreed that it may be justified in certain situations.
In the case of the Supreme Court, judicial activism may be warranted when there is a need to decide on constitutional issues. The Court has the authority to interpret the Constitution and its provisions, ensuring that the laws and actions of the government are in accordance with the principles and rights outlined in the Constitution. When a case presents a significant constitutional question or raises concerns about the protection of individual rights or the balance of power between branches of government, the Court may engage in judicial activism to provide a thorough and definitive interpretation of the Constitution. This can involve overturning previous decisions or creating new legal doctrines to address the constitutional issues at hand.
It is important to note that, while judicial activism may be warranted in cases involving constitutional issues, this does not mean that it is always the preferred approach or that it should be used in every case appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court generally prefers to adhere to the principle of stare decisis, which means respecting precedent and maintaining consistency with previous decisions. However, when there are compelling reasons to depart from precedent or when there are constitutional concerns that need to be resolved, judicial activism can be justified. Therefore, option C, when there is a need to decide on constitutional issues, is a warranted situation for judicial activism by the Supreme Court.
Judicial activism refers to a philosophy where judges interpret and apply the law with an active role, and sometimes even shaping or creating new laws, as opposed to strictly adhering to the original intent or plain meaning of the law. It is a matter of debate as to when judicial activism is warranted by the Supreme Court, but there are some general situations where it may be considered appropriate:
A. If a case is highly publicized in the media: While media attention alone may not be a sufficient reason for the Supreme Court to engage in judicial activism, it can sometimes bring to light issues of significant public importance that need to be addressed. The Court may intervene to ensure that justice is served and that constitutional rights are protected.
B. If there is a case where the court disagrees with a previous decision of the lower court: When the Supreme Court believes that a lower court's decision is flawed, inconsistent with established legal principles, or infringing upon constitutional rights, it may choose to engage in judicial activism by overturning or modifying that decision. This allows the Supreme Court to provide clarity and guidance on the correct interpretation of the law.
C. When there is a need to decide on constitutional issues: The Supreme Court's primary responsibility is to interpret and apply the United States Constitution. When there are significant constitutional questions or conflicts that require resolution, the Court may engage in judicial activism to provide a definitive interpretation of the Constitution and establish legal precedent.
D. In any case that is appealed to it: Generally, the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear every case that is appealed to it. The Court has discretion to select cases that have important legal, constitutional, or societal implications. By actively choosing which cases to hear, the Court can engage in judicial activism by addressing and deciding on controversial or significant issues.
It is important to note that the decision to engage in judicial activism is subjective and controversial. Different justices may have varying views on when it is warranted. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to strike a balance between upholding the law, preserving constitutional rights, and respecting the legislative and executive branches of government.