0
Of course. The habitual narrow interpretations of law stunts its growth as society matures. Broader interpretations allow the courts to render decisions that are more in step with modern culture and changing views. For example, modern interpretations are making it more and more difficult for some jurisdictions to justify discrimination against individuals for reasons of race, gender, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation, etc.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is sources of authority?
Judicial Activism
How does judicial activism and judicial restraint affect the separation of powers?
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.
Contrast original intent with judicial activism?
The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial activism versus. Versus strict constructionism, and living document versus original intent.
How do you see Judicial Activism in Pakistan?
To hell with Pakistan and you...
The idea that judges should use their power broadly to further justice based ontheir own personal views or agenda is called?
judicial activism!
What is the opposite of judicial activism?
judicial restraintFor more information, see Related Questions, below.
What was the marshall court best known for?
for its period of Judicial Activism
Was Judicial Activism or Judicial Restraint used in the Tinker v Des Moines case?
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.
Who favors 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.
Compare Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism?
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.
Did the Warren Court believe in judicial activism or judicial restraint?
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.
Was Miranda v. Arizona considered judicial restraint or judicial activism?
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.
