Judicial Activism vs' Judicial Restraint - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 6
About This Presentation
Title:

Judicial Activism vs' Judicial Restraint

Description:

The belief that is the role of judges to make bold policy decisions and possibly ... the federal courts, composed of unelected judges, are the least democratic ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:907
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 7
Provided by: jasbir8
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Judicial Activism vs' Judicial Restraint


1
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint
  • An explanation of the two theories

2
(No Transcript)
3
Judicial Activism
  • The belief that is the role of judges to make
    bold policy decisions and possibly even chart new
    constitutional ground
  • Believe that the other two branches represent the
    majority of Americans and that they usually make
    fair decisions for most people.  However,
    sometimes an individual's rights may suffer
    because he or she is always outvoted by the
    majority
  • In this case, the courts are the best branch for
    defending the individual's rights and making
    policy to help those who are weak economically or
    politically
  • Brown v. Topeka Board of Education The Court set
    policy, demanding that United States schools
    which were segregated must integrate

4
  • They say that many cases of judicial activism
    merely exemplify judicial review, and that courts
    must uphold the constitution and strike down any
    statute that violates the constitution
  • It is the duty of courts to protect minority
    rights and to uphold the law, and that
    constitutional democracy is far more than just
    majority rule
  • Judicial activism can be narrowly defined
  • overturning laws as unconstitutional
  • overturning judicial precedent
  • ruling against a preferred interpretation of the
    constitution

5
Judicial Restraint
  • Courts should defer to the decisions made by the
    legislative and executive branches
  • Congress and the president are elected by the
    people whereas members of the federal judiciary
    are not
  • Advocates of this view argue that the federal
    courts, composed of unelected judges, are the
    least democratic branch of government, and that
    judges should not get involved in political
    questions or conflicts between the other two
    branches

6
  • Asserts that judges should hesitate to strike
    down laws unless they are obviously
    unconstitutional
  • Believe that neither democracy nor the rule of
    law can exist when the law is merely what judges
    say it should be
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com