0
Supreme Court justices who support judicial activism and those who support judicial restraint most disagree on the answer to which question?
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
Verified answer
A : To what extent should the supreme court work to promote social progress ?
Wiki User
∙ 7y ago
Aliyah Pierce
Dos Vegito
Javier Baltazar
Cookiies4U
How broadly should justices interpret the constitution? -APEX ;)
Click the funny if it was helpful ^-^
Dos Vegito
Cookiies4U
Mama Mia
TheBestPyro2505
How important is the original intent of the Constitution when deciding cases? -Apex
Dos Vegito
Dominic Amorino
Jerry Jimmy
A Glass Of OJ
spug99
How important is the original intent of the Constitution when deciding cases?
Dos Vegito
What did Justice Harlan Fiske Stone say was the main restraint on the supreme court?
The justices' own sense of restraint
How many justices are there in the Judicial Branch?
9
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.
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.
Does the Judicial branch appoint judges to the supreme court?
No. The Executive Branch appoints US Supreme Court justices with the approval of the Senate.
What is judicial restraint?
Judicial restraint is the philosophy that judges and justices should defer to written legislation whenever possible, if it is not in conflict with the Constitution. A justice who uses judicial restraint tends to take a narrower view of the Constitution and does not attempt to broaden the definition of Amendments to fit a particular social or political agenda. The opposite of judicial restraint is judicial activism. For more information on the debate between judicial activism and judicial restrain, see Related Links, below.
What did Justice Harlan Fiske Stone say was the main restraint on the supreme court?
The justices' own sense of restraint
What theories explain how the court makes decisions?
I'm assuming you mean the Supreme Court. Judicial Restraint: the idea that justices should uphold the constitution at all costs even if it goes against their personal morals or what they believe would benefit society. This contrasts... Judicial Activism: when justices rule by considering the societal implications of such rulings and with the intent to change society for the better. This is quite controversial and perhaps the most famous example is the Warren Court, which ruled on such cases as Brown v Board, Griswald v Connecticut, etc Stare decisis: looking to past rulings and applying them to current cases
Is Brown v Board of Education considered judicial activism or judicial restraint?
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954) has often been cited as an example of liberal judicial activismbecause it ignored the doctrine of stare decisis (Latin: let the decision stand) by overturning the long-accepted "separate but equal" standard established in Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896) and reinterpreting the 13th and 14th Amendments in a manner that supported African-Americans' civil rights.Progressives hasten to point out that Plessy was a bad precedent, and the Warren Court simply corrected social and political biases that were not intended when the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified. One could just as easily say the Plessy case was an example of judicial activism.Bear in mind that "judicial activism" is an ambiguous concept relative to a person's point-of-view and interpretation of the Constitution, and is the result of subjective judgment both on the part of the justices ruling on a case and on the part of the individuals analyzing the Court's decision
What term refers to an instance in which the Supreme Court goes beyond the constitution to change the Societal behavior by interpreting the constitution to mean what the justices want it to mean?
judicial activism For more information, see Related Questions, below.
Justice harlan fiske stone states the main restraint on the power of the supreme court is?
The justices' ow sense of restraint
How many justices are there in the Judicial Branch?
9
What branch has 9 judges?
I assume you're asking about the branch of government, Executive, Legislative, or Judicial. The Judicial is the supreme court, with nine justices (the words judicial and justice come from the same root, see).
How many justices in the judicial branch in Iowa?
100
What the definition of dissenter?
To disagree with a widely held public opinion. An explanation from justices who disagree with the Court's decision
Who are the people that works in the judicial branch?
Judges. Justices (in US)
What is the reason for increase in judicial activism?
Judicial activism, or the perception of judicial activism, increases when the balance of the court favors justices with extreme viewpoints (either progressive or conservative) who have a political agenda, or who believe they need to correct constitutional interpretations and decisions of an earlier Court in order to influence social policy. Please note that judicial activism is a subjective term, usually applied pejoratively by an individual or group whose beliefs differ from that of the Court's majority (conservatives rarely refer to conservative decisions as activism; progressives rarely refer to progressive decisions as activism).
