0
Suggest a court case that has been or could have been scrutinized as judicial activism?
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954), which overturned Plessy, has often been cited as an example of liberal judicial activism, because it ignored the doctrine of stare decisis (Latin: let the decision stand) and reinterpreted the 13th and 14th Amendments in a manner that supported civil rights for African-Americans.
You can access the full opinion of both cases via Related Links, below.
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 subject judgment both on the part of the justices ruling on a case and on the part of the individuals analyzing the Court's decision.
Wiki User
∙ 14y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What was true about gas and electric service in cities prior to progressive era?
Prior to progressive era the companies could charge as much as they wanted. The progressive era is the time when there was a huge level activism on social and political reforms.
Was john hanson an slave owner or abolitionist?
This is very dibateable but,yes he was a slave owner.Others will tell you what they will but I suggest researching more I could be wrong.
What is the value of an 1885 US Morgan silver dollar with pictures?
A coin, such as the one you have described, must be seen before a estimate could be made. I suggest you take the coin to a coin shop and have it appraised.
Is Abraham Lincoln right handed?
There are not any sites that i could find info but i did look at some of his writing, his writing was tilted to the right so one might suggest he wrote with his left.
What are the three branches of US government?
The Executive Branch;The Legislative Branch;The Judicial Branch.Legislative Executive Judicial1.Legislative branch - (i.e. Congress).2.Executive branch (i.e. The President).3.Judicial branch (i.e. The Supreme Court).
Considering what you have learned read and observed suggest a court case that has been or could have been scrutinized as judicial activism Be sure to explain your answer?
i was looking for this answer and couldn't find it... sorry :/
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.
What is a synonym for scrutinized?
An alternative word for scrutinized could be examined, inspected, or analyzed.
How is the Jessica Lal case related to judicial activism in India compared to that of a developed country like the US?
In judicial activism it is the people who give jutice to the victim and this is what happened in jessica lal case. thousands of Indians protested and stood for her so that she could get justice...
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).
What is judicial activism?
Judicial activism is the tendency to interpret the Constitution or law in a way that goes beyond the original authors' intent, in order to influence public policy. Activism can be either conservative or liberal: Conservative activism tends to narrow the scope of interpretation to restrict government or individual rights; liberal activism tends to broaden the scope of interpretation to expand individual rights in keeping with progressive social norms.Martin Garbus, in his book Courting Disaster: The Supreme Court and the Unmaking of American Laws, claims the Marshall Court, New Deal Court, Warren Court and Rehnquist Court all made decisions that had their basis in political agendas, rather than laws.Often, charges of judicial activism mean the Court or justice has made a decision with which the accuser disagrees. Therefore, progressives accuse conservatives of being judicial activists when they interpret the Constitution to support conservative political ideologies; conservatives accuse progressives of being judicial activists when they interpret the Constitution to support progressive political ideologies.Conversely, when a Court upholds an earlier precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis, or refuses to declare a challenged act of Congress unconstitutional, or otherwise upholds the status quo, they are said to be practicing judicial restraint.The debate between judicial activism and judicial restraint tends to reveal as much about the opinions of the person making the accusation as the tendencies of the Court.Commonly Cited Examples of Judicial ActivismMarbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905)Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954)Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965)Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967)Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)A+LS: A justice allows his or her personal opinions to influence a decision
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 is the outcome of the judicial branch?
no idea what this question means. Could you clarify?
Judicial and executive branches could veto laws?
Virginia plan
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.
Suggest a new hypothesis that could lead a different experiment?
Suggest a new hypothesis that could lead a different experiment
What is a sentence with the word suggest?
How could you suggest such a thing?!I suggest you follow the rules.His facial expression seemed to suggest disapproval.
