Post on 18-Dec-2015
Judicial Restraintvs.
Judicial Activism&
Judicial Branch Checks
Judicial Restraint
• The belief that a case should be interpreted on the basis of:– the original intent of the Constitution;– the intent of those who enacted the law;– and precedent
• Laws should only be overturned when a CLEAR violation of the Constitution is present
• Courts should interpret the law, not make law
• Ex. – Dred Scott vs. Sanford
Judicial Activism
• The belief that a the Constitution and existing laws should be interpreted on the basis of:– on going changes in beliefs, values, and conditions
• Courts should take an active role in solving social, economic, and political problems
• Courts should act as a “guardian of the people”
• Ex. – Gideon vs. Wainwright (states should provide legal representation to the poor)
Judicial BranchChecks and Balances
• Legislative– Pass constitutional amendments to legalize a policy
that the SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional• 26th Amendment
– Passing a new law– Confirming the President’s judicial appointments
• Executive– Judicial Appointments– Refuse to obey SCOTUS decisions
• Andrew Jackson
King vs. Burwell
• Summarize the arguments for both sides of the case.
• How would the Supreme Court rule if the followed the idea of judicial restraint, and why?
• How would they rule if the followed judicial activism, and why?
• http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/king-v-burwell/