Respondents view these cases as critical to understanding the meaning of judicial activism and restraint. The purpose is to expose students to the written argumentation and personalities advocating a particular type of judicial interpretation so that they will be better prepared to advocate such interpretations in their legal careers. The complete survey results appear near this article. Supreme Court justices, from the history of that Court, and their two official opinions that provide the clearest written examples advocating an expansive reading of the U.
First Justice Their Clearest Case. Earl Warren Reynolds v. Sims , U. John Marshall McCulloch v. Maryland , 17 U. William Brennan New York Times v. Sullivan , U. William Douglas Griswold v. Connecticut , U. Second Justice Their Clearest Case. Earl Warren Miranda v. Arizona , U. Earl Warren Brown v. Board of Education , U.
Supreme Court justices, from the history of that Court, and their two official opinions that provide the clearest written examples advocating a narrow reading of the U. Blaisdell , U. Antonin Scalia Michael H. Gerald D. Clarence Thomas U. Lopez , U. Roger Taney Scott v. Sandford , 60 U. Horace Brown Plessy v.
Ferguson , U. Wright , U. Felix Frankfurter U. Korematsu , U. Felix Frankfurter W. State Board of Ed. Barnette , U. Samuel Miller Slaughterhouse Cases , 83 U. Supreme Court justices, from the history of that Court, and their two official opinions that provide the clearest written examples advocating a neutral reading of the U. John Harlan the elder Plessy v.
William Brennan Texas v. Johnson , U. John Harlan Bivens v. John Harlan the younger Griffin v. Illinois , U.
Robert Jackson W. Harlan Stone U. Carolene Products Co. John Marshall Gibbons v. Ogden , 22 U. Case Why? Marbury v. Madison , 5 U. Baker v. Carr , U. Screws v. Shifted our paradigm about the structure of modern public law case. Because it shows why all modern free speech doctrine is wrong. A subtle parody of law review style and substance.
An ongoing challenge between knowledge and belief. Regarding judicial activists and strict constructionists, Karl Lewellyn said: There is the man who loves creativeness, who can without loss of sleep combine risk-taking with responsibility, who sees and feels institutions as things built and to be built to serve functions, and who sees the functions as vital and law as a tool to be continually reoriented to justice and to general welfare. Lewellyn, K. Andrew A. A few years later, the first justice to be impeached, Samuel Chase, was accused of being overly political.
His impeachment and subsequent acquittal started a trend toward nonpartisanship and political impartiality among judges. Today, judges continue this tradition by exercising impartiality in cases before them. Nonetheless, charges of political bias continue to be levied against judges at all levels. Even at the Supreme Court level, most of the cases heard involve conflicts among circuit courts of appeals or statutory interpretation.
In a small minority of cases, however, federal judges are called on to interpret a case involving religion, race, or civil rights.
In these cases, judges are guided sometimes by nothing more than their own interpretation of case law and their own conscience. This has led some activists to claim that judges are using their positions to advance their own political agendas.
In general terms, judges are thought to fall into one of two ideological camps. On the politically conservative right, judges are described as either strict constructionists Also known as originalists.
Politically conservative judges who adhere to the view that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of its original meaning when it was adopted and that new rights should be granted by the legislative process rather than through judicial review. Judges who adhere to this philosophy believe that social change is best left to the politically elected branches of government. The role of judges is therefore to strictly interpret the Constitution, and nothing more. Strict constructionists also believe that the Constitution contains the complete list of rights that Americans enjoy and that any right not listed in the Constitution does not exist and must be earned legislatively or through constitutional amendment.
These judges believe in original meaning The view that the Constitution should be interpreted in light of what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the document. Justice Antonin Scalia, appointed by Ronald Reagan to the Supreme Court in , embodies the modern strict constructionist. In , Justice Antonin Scalia Figure 2. Click the link to watch a portion of this fascinating interview with one of the most powerful judges in the country.
On the politically liberal left are judges who are described as activist. Judicial activists Judges who adhere to the view that the Constitution is a living document that should adapt and change with the times. Judicial activists believe that sometimes the political process is flawed and that majority rule can lead to the baser instincts of humanity becoming the rule of law.
They believe their role is to safeguard the voice of the minority and the oppressed and to deliver the promise of liberty in the Constitution to all Americans. Judicial activism at the Supreme Court was at its peak in the s, when Chief Justice Earl Warren led the Court in breaking new ground on civil rights protections. Although a Republican, and nominated by Republican President Eisenhower, Earl Warren became a far more activist judge than anyone anticipated once on the Supreme Court.
Chief Justice Warren led the Court in the desegregation cases in the s, including the one affecting the Little Rock Nine. Arizona , U. Source: Photo courtesy of the U. The modern characterization of judges as politically motivated can be traced to the Great Depression. Against cataclysmic economic upheaval, Americans voted for Franklin D. Roosevelt Figure 2. President Roosevelt vowed to alter the relationship between the people and their government to prevent the sort of destruction and despair wreaked by the Depression.
The centerpiece of his action plan was the New Deal, a legislative package that rewrote the role of government, vastly increasing its size and its role in private commercial activity. The New Deal brought maximum working hours, the minimum wage, mortgage assistance, economic stimulus, and social safety nets such as Social Security and insured bank deposits.
In the middle sat two swing votes. Frustrated, President Roosevelt devised a plan to alter the makeup of the Supreme Court by increasing the number of judges and appointing new justices. The loudest criticism came from the White House. The abortion debate is a good example of the politically charged atmosphere surrounding modern judicial politics.
Strict constructionists decry Roe v. Wade as an extremely activist decision and bemoan the fact that in a democracy, no one has ever had the chance to vote on one of the most socially controversial and divisive issues of our time.
Within the first trimester of her pregnancy, her right to privacy outweighs governmental intrusion. Since there is no right to privacy mentioned in the Constitution, strict constructionists believe that Roe has no constitutional foundations to stand on.
Roe did not, however, declare that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution. A string of cases before Roe established that right. In the Supreme Court overturned a Connecticut law prohibiting unmarried couples from purchasing any form of birth control or contraceptive.
Griswold v. Connecticut , U. Two years later, the Supreme Court found a right to privacy in the due process clause when it declared laws prohibiting mixed-race marriages to be unconstitutional. Loving v.
0コメント