0
The Warren Court, which was active from 1953 until Chief Justice Earl Warren retired in 1969, is often accused of judicial activism for its many decisions supporting African-Americans' civil rights.
Judicial activism is often a derogatory charge associated with the phrase "legislating from the bench," that implies the Court exceeds its authority to
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How does judicial activism and judicial restraint affect the separation of powers?
Judicial activism weakens the separation of powers by involving the Court in what are traditionally executive and legislative functions. Judicial restraint reinforces separation of powers.
Did the Warren Court believe in judicial activism or judicial restraint?
The Warren Court, which was active from 1953 until Chief Justice Earl Warren retired in 1969, is often accused of judicial activism for its many decisions supporting African-Americans' civil rights. Whether they believed they were judicial activists or not is unknown.
How does the concept of judicial activism relate to President Obama's most recent nominee for the US Supreme Court particularly the Senate?
It doesn't. Judicial activism refers to court decisions where the judge(s) or (more often) Supreme Court justices interpret the Constitution in a manner that goes beyond its purported intent in order to influence public policy. The term is subjective and often used to criticize decisions which those with opposing ideology disagree.Although judicial activism is usually associated with progressive Courts (like the Warren Court), conservative Courts are equally guilty. One recent example is the 5-4 decision in Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 50 (2010) overturning legislation designed to limit corporate campaign donations.With regard to Obama's current (2010) nominee, Elena Kagan has never served as a judge, so she has no record of jurisprudence and can't be accused of participating in decisions that would be criticized as judicial activism. The Senate Judiciary Committee, likewise, is not guilty of judicial activism because the term doesn't apply to their function in the appointment process.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
What did the US Supreme Court demonstrate under Chief Justice Earl Warren?
The charge against the Warren Court was judicial activism; however, this is a matter of perception and opinion commonly expressed by conservatives, not a fact. For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Example of Judicial activism?
Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)Marbury vs Madison is activist in the way the court took action to say that the Constitution overrides laws passed by the congress (legislature). Therefore it turned down a request by Marbury to put him in as a Justice of the Peace because doing so would require the Courts to allow the Congress peremptory power over the Constitution. This was not allowed and is referred to as the start of judicial activism. However it is a complex case (Marbury vs Madison.)For more in-depth information on Marbury v. Madison, see Related Questions, below.
What was the marshall court best known for?
for its period of Judicial Activism
How does judicial activism and judicial restraint affect the separation of powers?
Judicial activism weakens the separation of powers by involving the Court in what are traditionally executive and legislative functions. Judicial restraint reinforces separation of powers.
What judicial activism?
When a court changes the interpretation of a law from what the legislative branch intended
What it is called when the supreme court uses its power to change policy?
Judicial Activism
Was Judicial Activism or Judicial Restraint used in the Tinker v Des Moines case?
Judicial activism was used because the Court ruled that the school policy prohibiting the students from wearing the arm bands to protest symbolically the Vietnam War violated the students' free speech rights. By overturning a policy of the government (the public school's policy), the Court exercised judicial activism.
Did the Warren Court believe in judicial activism or judicial restraint?
The Warren Court, which was active from 1953 until Chief Justice Earl Warren retired in 1969, is often accused of judicial activism for its many decisions supporting African-Americans' civil rights. Whether they believed they were judicial activists or not is unknown.
This elevated the Supreme Court to a status balancing the powers of the other branches.?
judicial activism
Was Miranda v. Arizona considered judicial restraint or judicial activism?
Neither. The court simply ruled that people need to be advised of rights they had always been entitled to. --- Activism, because the Court invented a new rule. They used their power broadly to further justice instead of just allowing the decisions of the other branches of government to stand. It's true that their rights were already there, but that's not the determining factor of Judicial activism/restraint.
Judicial activism and judicial restraint in India?
(note: this explanation assumes understanding of several U.S. landmark cases) Judicial activism is closely tied with the personal standpoint of "liberal." It is basically being more "activist" or more in turn with "adding" to the U.S. Constitution rather than merely interpreting it (judicial restraint). Three major cases that have been touted as judicial activism abuse include Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and Brown v. Board of Education (abortion, homosexuality, and racial segregation, respectively). Without judicial activism, the U.S. would still be stuck with the Dredd Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson, regarding African Americans' rights. Without judicial activism, Lochner v. New York would stand as a legal precendent, and the minimum wage would be illegal on the basis that it violates the right to business contracts. Additionally, it could be argued that judicial activism is necessary because it is difficult to decide court cases based on the U.S. Constitution when the framers' are long dead, their intent unknown, and the Constitution written in an age before the modern or digital age.
Under what Chief Justice did the US Supreme Court adopt the philosophy of judicial activism?
Chief Justice John Marshall
Supreme Court justice who support judicial activism and those who support judicial restraint most disagree on the answer to which question?
A : To what extent should the supreme court work to promote social progress ?
What Judicial philosophy states that the court should uphold acts of the Congress unless acts violate specific provisions of the Constitution?
Judicial restraint. The opposite of judicial restraint is judicial activism.For more information about the controversy over judicial activism and judicial restraint, see Related Questions, below.
