The most recent example of judicial activism was the case of Perry v. Schwarzenegger, a 2010 decision by federal judge Vaughn R. Walker overturning California's constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage. In spite of the voters' approval of such a ban on same-sex, Judge Walker overturned the amendment, primarily based on his interpretation that the Constitution implies a "right to privacy," and thereby nullifying the will of the California electorate. Judge Walker's decision is currently under appeal.
AnswerYou might find the cases of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896), which reversed many of the civil rights advances of Reconstruction, and established the "separate but equal" doctrine that appeared to undermine the intent of the newly passed 13th and 14th Amendments in granting equality to African-Americans, an interesting case of conservative judicial activism.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.
judicial
His murder sparked the upsurge of activism
judicial
The branches are legislative, executive, and judicial as established by the US Constitution.
Judicial Activism
Judicial activism weakens the separation of powers by involving the Court in what are traditionally executive and legislative functions. Judicial restraint reinforces separation of powers.
The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial activism versus. Versus strict constructionism, and living document versus original intent.
To hell with Pakistan and you...
judicial activism!
judicial restraintFor more information, see Related Questions, below.
for its period of Judicial Activism
Judicial activism was used because the Court ruled that the school policy prohibiting the students from wearing the arm bands to protest symbolically the Vietnam War violated the students' free speech rights. By overturning a policy of the government (the public school's policy), the Court exercised judicial activism.
A person who favors judicial activism is one who prefers a decision to be made via a personal opinion, rather than focusing on the law. A person who does this is considered unlawful or a federalist.
Judicial restraint is the theory that judges should limit their exercise of power and strike down laws only when they are obviously unconstitutional, and always follow precedents set by older courts. Judicial activism is the opposite view, and is sometimes meant to imply politically motivated judicial decisions.
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. Whether they believed they were judicial activists or not is unknown.
Neither. The court simply ruled that people need to be advised of rights they had always been entitled to. --- Activism, because the Court invented a new rule. They used their power broadly to further justice instead of just allowing the decisions of the other branches of government to stand. It's true that their rights were already there, but that's not the determining factor of Judicial activism/restraint.