0
What else can I help you with?
What court became identified with judicial activism?
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 toUNDER CONSTRUCTION
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.
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 is the debate between judicial restraint and judicial activism?
Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial ActivismThe role of the judiciary branch has been up for debate for centuries. This is mostly due to no specific mention of the judiciary's exact task in the Constitution, except the checks and balances and separation of powers left behind by the Founding Fathers.Another factor in the debate is how the Constitution is interpreted. The method of interpretation is highly subjective and leads to further arguments on the role and power of the judicial branch.One last factor is the personal ideology of the judges. Personal views can affect a judge's judgment significantly to the point of questioning the judge's basis for decision-making.There are six main methods of interpreting the Constitution. One is textualism, or similarly, strict constructionalism. This means solely the text is referred to.For example: "Congress shall make no law… abridging freedom of speech" means exactly "no law." However, it has the drawback that not exactly everything is stated in the Constitution.Another similar method of interpretation is contextualism, which is attempting to derive the meaning from the text. Its main drawback, however, is subjectivity. "Freedom of speech" can be interpreted in over a hundred different ways. Is treason protected? Is flag-burning protected? Public school prayer? These kinds of arguments have all been hot topics of debate.Two other methods are originalism and structuralism. Originalism attempts to discover the original intent of the framers while structuralism attempts to refer to the structure of government (checks and balances, separation of powers, etc.). However, both methods are highly subjective. It is difficult to determine the framers' original intent when they purposely left the Constitution vague and ambiguous. It is difficult to base decisions on structuralism without hard concrete proof like textualism and contextualism.Two final methods are doctrinalism and developmentalism. Doctrinalism is the basing of decisions on previous case precedents or stare decisis. This is a standard approach of the judicial system.For example Plessy v. Ferguson held against many challenges until 1954's Brown v. Board of Education decision. Developmentalism is the add-on to doctrinalism in the sense that historical events and political culture are included for interpretation. However, both methods are negative in the sense that they both detract attention from the Constitution.There have been literally hundreds of landmark cases, but only a handful that have been brought up in the judicial restraint-activism debate. Judges have been noticeably making use of contextualism until the progressivist era.For example: Plessy v. Ferguson was passed on the basis that the Constitution did not mention or intend that blacks have the same citizenship rights as whites and that segregation was unconstitutional. The ruling was not overturned until Brown v. Board of Education, which has been touted because critics say that the judges "overstepped their bounds" or became too activist in their ruling.There are many cases where critics have argued that the judges and jurors were too activist in their decision, and possibly too self-centered on their personal views. Some examples include Roe v. Wade concerning abortion. The Supreme court ruled that abortion must be legal to protect the woman's health and privacy. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the government or anyone else to intervene in another person's personal affairs. In the Court's opinion, nobody could tell a woman that she could or could not have a child.Another debated ruling includes Lawrence v. Texas where the court ruled that consensual homosexual sex was legal and protected by the Constitution on the basis of personal liberty. Lochner v. New York was a debated case before the progressivist era.The Supreme court once ruled that minimum wage laws were unconstitutional because they infringe on one's right to negotiate business contracts.Other highly debated cases include Mapp v. Ohio dealing with search warrants and unwarranted evidence, Roper v. Simmons dealing with the death sentence and minors (under 18), and Miranda v. Arizona dealing with the accused knowing their (Miranda) rights and what they are accused of.Other things to consider are the judges' ideology. Conservative judges are likely to be more conservative in their decisions, such as Justice Felix Frankfurter. They will be more inclined to view the Constitution as a definite document, practice judicial restraint, be pro-life, and against the separation of church and state, viewing morality as an important factor.Liberals, on the other hand, such as chief justice Earl Warren, view the Constitution as a living document that is dynamic. Liberal judges are generally activist in their decisions, pro-choice, and a proponent of the separation of church and state.Moderates, obviously, would be a mix of both.However, that is not to say that judges should be confined to rigid categories. Conservative judges have sometimes practiced judicial activism and liberal judges sometimes practice judicial restraint.The role and power of the judicial branch has long been debated. Are judges supposed to practice judicial restraint, merely interpreting the Constitution or are judges supposed to practice judicial activism, proposing new laws and precedents, which may or may not be based on the Constitution?Additionally, how exactly is the Constitution supposed to be interpreted? One thing that is certain is that judges should not lie on the ends of the spectrum. Too much judicial restraint could lead to more decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson and Dredd Scott v. Sandford, denying African Americans equal rights, whereas too much judicial activism could lead to more decisions such as Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, adding rights and lessening restrictions but striking down conservative views.
What was Warren Gamaliel Harding's shoe size?
He had the biggest presidential feet because they were size 14! Holy smokes!
What court became identified with judicial activism?
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 toUNDER CONSTRUCTION
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.
Under what Chief Justice did the US Supreme Court adopt the philosophy of judicial activism?
Chief Justice John Marshall
Who was the US Supreme Court justice whose judicial activism came under increasing attack by conservatives?
Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953-1969)
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.
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 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
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 is the debate between judicial restraint and judicial activism?
Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial ActivismThe role of the judiciary branch has been up for debate for centuries. This is mostly due to no specific mention of the judiciary's exact task in the Constitution, except the checks and balances and separation of powers left behind by the Founding Fathers.Another factor in the debate is how the Constitution is interpreted. The method of interpretation is highly subjective and leads to further arguments on the role and power of the judicial branch.One last factor is the personal ideology of the judges. Personal views can affect a judge's judgment significantly to the point of questioning the judge's basis for decision-making.There are six main methods of interpreting the Constitution. One is textualism, or similarly, strict constructionalism. This means solely the text is referred to.For example: "Congress shall make no law… abridging freedom of speech" means exactly "no law." However, it has the drawback that not exactly everything is stated in the Constitution.Another similar method of interpretation is contextualism, which is attempting to derive the meaning from the text. Its main drawback, however, is subjectivity. "Freedom of speech" can be interpreted in over a hundred different ways. Is treason protected? Is flag-burning protected? Public school prayer? These kinds of arguments have all been hot topics of debate.Two other methods are originalism and structuralism. Originalism attempts to discover the original intent of the framers while structuralism attempts to refer to the structure of government (checks and balances, separation of powers, etc.). However, both methods are highly subjective. It is difficult to determine the framers' original intent when they purposely left the Constitution vague and ambiguous. It is difficult to base decisions on structuralism without hard concrete proof like textualism and contextualism.Two final methods are doctrinalism and developmentalism. Doctrinalism is the basing of decisions on previous case precedents or stare decisis. This is a standard approach of the judicial system.For example Plessy v. Ferguson held against many challenges until 1954's Brown v. Board of Education decision. Developmentalism is the add-on to doctrinalism in the sense that historical events and political culture are included for interpretation. However, both methods are negative in the sense that they both detract attention from the Constitution.There have been literally hundreds of landmark cases, but only a handful that have been brought up in the judicial restraint-activism debate. Judges have been noticeably making use of contextualism until the progressivist era.For example: Plessy v. Ferguson was passed on the basis that the Constitution did not mention or intend that blacks have the same citizenship rights as whites and that segregation was unconstitutional. The ruling was not overturned until Brown v. Board of Education, which has been touted because critics say that the judges "overstepped their bounds" or became too activist in their ruling.There are many cases where critics have argued that the judges and jurors were too activist in their decision, and possibly too self-centered on their personal views. Some examples include Roe v. Wade concerning abortion. The Supreme court ruled that abortion must be legal to protect the woman's health and privacy. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the government or anyone else to intervene in another person's personal affairs. In the Court's opinion, nobody could tell a woman that she could or could not have a child.Another debated ruling includes Lawrence v. Texas where the court ruled that consensual homosexual sex was legal and protected by the Constitution on the basis of personal liberty. Lochner v. New York was a debated case before the progressivist era.The Supreme court once ruled that minimum wage laws were unconstitutional because they infringe on one's right to negotiate business contracts.Other highly debated cases include Mapp v. Ohio dealing with search warrants and unwarranted evidence, Roper v. Simmons dealing with the death sentence and minors (under 18), and Miranda v. Arizona dealing with the accused knowing their (Miranda) rights and what they are accused of.Other things to consider are the judges' ideology. Conservative judges are likely to be more conservative in their decisions, such as Justice Felix Frankfurter. They will be more inclined to view the Constitution as a definite document, practice judicial restraint, be pro-life, and against the separation of church and state, viewing morality as an important factor.Liberals, on the other hand, such as chief justice Earl Warren, view the Constitution as a living document that is dynamic. Liberal judges are generally activist in their decisions, pro-choice, and a proponent of the separation of church and state.Moderates, obviously, would be a mix of both.However, that is not to say that judges should be confined to rigid categories. Conservative judges have sometimes practiced judicial activism and liberal judges sometimes practice judicial restraint.The role and power of the judicial branch has long been debated. Are judges supposed to practice judicial restraint, merely interpreting the Constitution or are judges supposed to practice judicial activism, proposing new laws and precedents, which may or may not be based on the Constitution?Additionally, how exactly is the Constitution supposed to be interpreted? One thing that is certain is that judges should not lie on the ends of the spectrum. Too much judicial restraint could lead to more decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson and Dredd Scott v. Sandford, denying African Americans equal rights, whereas too much judicial activism could lead to more decisions such as Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, adding rights and lessening restrictions but striking down conservative views.
What actors and actresses appeared in The Restraint of Beasts - 2008?
The cast of The Restraint of Beasts - 2008 includes: Warren Clarke John Henshaw as David Hall Rhys Ifans Eddie Marsan Ben Whishaw
What was the Warren Court best known for?
The Warren Court (1953-1969) is nearly synonymous with the concept of "judicial activism," typically considered a pejorative and criticism of a liberal Court attempting to advance social policy. The Roberts Court, while conservative, is equally guilty of judicial activism when it overturns humanitarian precedents in preference to legal decisions favoring the federal government and large corporations. Earl Warren's legacy was the end of racial segregation, the death of Jim Crow laws, changes in criminal procedure, enhanced voter rights, reapportionment of political districts, protection of freedom of speech, pronouncement of a right to privacy, and restriction of government-subsidized religious activity. These changes were primarily accomplished by selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. For more information, see Related Questions, below.
What was the warren court known for?
The Warren Court (1953-1969) is nearly synonymous with the concept of "judicial activism," typically considered a pejorative and criticism of a liberal Court attempting to advance social policy. The Roberts Court, while conservative, is equally guilty of judicial activism when it overturns humanitarian precedents in preference to legal decisions favoring the federal government and large corporations. Earl Warren's legacy was the end of racial segregation, the death of Jim Crow laws, changes in criminal procedure, enhanced voter rights, reapportionment of political districts, protection of freedom of speech, pronouncement of a right to privacy, and restriction of government-subsidized religious activity. These changes were primarily accomplished by selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. For more information, see Related Questions, below.
