Supreme Court Justices should read the plain text of the Constitution, and rule in accordance with the Constitution. Too many lawyers and judges do not LIKE the Constitution, and base their rulings on what they WISH it said, rather than what it actually DOES say.
For example, the plain text of the document allows eighteen "Enumerated Powers" of Congress, as listed in Article 1 Section 8. The Federal government can do nothing more. However, about 95% of what the US Federal Government is not authorized by the Constitution. Education. Health insurance. Drug laws. ALL of these are unconstitutional, because the Constitution does not allow the Federal government a role in these matters. They are entirely left to the States, or to the People. In fact, the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights explicitly state "And No More!"
The number of Supreme Court justices is determined by Congress through legislation. The Constitution does not specify the exact number of justices, so it can be changed by Congress. The current number of justices is set at nine, but it has varied throughout history.
Yes, Supreme Court justices are required to be lawyers in order to serve on the bench.
Supreme Court justices secure their positions on the bench through nomination by the President of the United States and confirmation by the Senate. Once appointed, they serve for life unless they choose to retire or are impeached and removed from office.
Supreme Court justices are chosen by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Factors that influence the selection process include the nominee's qualifications, judicial philosophy, political ideology, and potential impact on the Court's balance of power.
Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate. The process for selecting them involves the President nominating a candidate, the Senate Judiciary Committee holding hearings to evaluate the nominee, and the full Senate voting on whether to confirm the nominee.
activist justices are passionite and volunteered non-activist justices are forced against one's will
The justices' own sense of restraint
The justices' ow sense of restraint
This is an unanswerable question because the concept of "judicial activism" is somewhat vague, and not all cases involve decisions that could be considered "legislating from the bench." At present, conservative justices dominate the US Supreme Court and together they have made a few decisions that overturned established precedents and federal laws intended to protect regular citizens against large corporations. These activist decisions were the product of votes from the five conservative members of the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito. None of the justices can be considered activist under all circumstances, however. One recent case upholding First Amendment rights to free speech was decided by a nearly unanimous 8-1 vote, with all but one justice (Alito) adhering to established precedent.
After all th opinions have been written and finalized, the justices announced their final decisions. The decisions are from the majority vote of the justices
The Supreme Court Justices interpret and enforce the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the ultimate "Law of the Land", to which they are bound.
A judicial review.
A judicial review.
The justices of the US Supreme Court vote on each case that is brought before them. The decision of the court is whatever a majority of the justices agree on. Each justice has an equal say in the decision.
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.
THERE ARE TIMES THEY DON'T MAKE GOOD DECISIONS
No. The justices are appointed by the president for life, death, or until they retire. They are suppose to be objective and neutral so they can base their decisions on the interpretation of the constitution and previous cases.