0
The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial activism versus. Versus strict constructionism, and living document versus original intent.
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
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 ?
Supreme Court justices who support judicial activism and those who support judicial restraint most disagree on the answer to which question?
How important is the original intent of the Constitution when deciding cases? -Apex
This type of judicial philosophy called?
Strict constructionism is a judicial philosophy that interprets the Constitution based on its original intent and text, strictly adhering to the literal meaning of the words within it. Judges following this philosophy typically do not incorporate contemporary values or societal changes in their interpretations.
Do you think an advocate of judicial restraint would support a narrow interpretation of the constitution or a broad interpretation?
An advocate of judicial restrain would support a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, one that adhered closely to the language of the document and his or her belief about the Framers' original intent. Interpretive ideologies such as textualism, "strict constructionism," and originalism are most often associated with judicial restraint. Contextualism, which attempts to infer intent from content, may also result in judicial restraint; however, the degree of subjectivity implicit in this method can also lend itself to judicial activism.
What is flexible interpretation?
flexible interpretation, also known as judicial activism, is a way of viewing the constitution that shows judges as trusted individuals who sometimes inject their personal beliefs and opinions when making judicial decisions rather than interpreting the constitution by its original intent. many left leaning justices of the supreme court employ the use of flexible interpretation because of its allowance of personal thoughts and beliefs having an effect on judicial rulings.
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.
Does judicial restraint rely on the principle of stare decisis?
Doctrinalism relies on the principle of stare decisis.Judicial restraint relies on a narrow interpretation of the text of the Constitution and the Framers' inferred intent in decision-making. If the precedent being relied upon under stare decisis was made using judicial restraint, then adhering to the precedent also involves judicial restraint; if the controlling precedent being used represents an instance of judicial activism, then upholding the precedent also requires a (lesser) degree of judicial activism.The concepts of judicial restraint and judicial activism relate to decisions based on a particular theoretical view of the Constitution and its purpose. Stare decisis relates to consistency in upholding case law, regardless of whether the precedent was originally determined via activism or restraint.
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.
The idea of the original intent claims that?
Original intent is a theory in law concerning constitutional and statutory interpretation.
What is a judicial definition of crime?
A crime is a criminal act committed with a criminal intent.
What are the ratings and certificates for Original Intent - 1992 V?
Original Intent - 1992 V is rated/received certificates of: Australia:PG USA:PG
What kind of restraint does the US Supreme Court uphold?
Good question.You may mean "judicial restraint," in which the Court upholds earlier precedents, supports enacted law, and interprets the Constitution as closely as possible to the framers' purported intent. While this is supposed to be the ideal position in order to maintain a balance of power among the three branches of government, both liberal and conservative Courts have engaged in judicial activism, overturning long held precedents in favor of advancing a particular social or political agenda.Many conservatives accused the Warren Court of judicial activism for their decisions advancing individual civil liberties; on the other hand, many liberals have accused the current Roberts' court (and some before it) of practicing judicial activism by making decisions favoring corporate interests to the detriment of individual rights, as in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, (2010) or conservative politicians, as in Bush v. Gore, (2000).The Court deviates from upholding judicial restraint often enough to make judicial restraint an incorrect answer; nevertheless, it is probably the answer your instructor expects.
