'Judicial activism cannot be justified.' Discuss.
- Created by: Ella-Jane
- Created on: 26-04-17 23:17
View mindmap
- Judicial 'Activism cannot be justified.' Discuss
- Justified
- The Court's own decisions can contain errors that must be corrected instead of keeping a harmful precedent
- Perez v. Brownwell - 1958 - SCOTUS upheld the US legislature's right to take away a person's citizenship for a voluntary action undertaken without the intent to lose citizenship
- Afroyim v. Rusk - 1967 - Used the 14th amendment's citizenship clause to retract the earlier decision and stop the US legislature revoking citizenship
- eg. Voting in a foreign election
- Perez v. Brownwell - 1958 - SCOTUS upheld the US legislature's right to take away a person's citizenship for a voluntary action undertaken without the intent to lose citizenship
- Legislators, the executive and state judiciaries are held accountable by the electorate, pressure groups and funding bodies and individuals
- Judges have life tenure and security of their wages meaning they are in a better/easier position to tackle more controversial topics
- Three Iowa judges were voted out of office after they voted as part of a unanimous decision to legalise same-sex marriage
- The principles of the constitution are clear and it is the Judiciary's job to protect them from being neglected by the legislature and executive branches of government
- United States v. Nixon - 1974 - 8-0 decision that Nixon must hand over tape recordings he was refusing to give that aided the federal investigations into the watergate scandal
- He claimed executive privilage
- United States v. Nixon - 1974 - 8-0 decision that Nixon must hand over tape recordings he was refusing to give that aided the federal investigations into the watergate scandal
- The Court's own decisions can contain errors that must be corrected instead of keeping a harmful precedent
- Unjustified
- The constitution is very vague in parts and subject to interpretation - no one can claim to understand it fully
- As an unelected body, SCOTUS should defer to the judgement of other branches of government
- US citizens have both the right to privacy and the right to liberty but what exactly do these mean?
- Goodridge v. Department of Public Health - 2003 - the first time same-sex couples won the right to marry due to US citizens having the "right to individual liberty" in both state and federal constitutons
- Grisworld v. Connecticut 1965 - Connecticut law criminalising the use of contraception is unconstitutional due to the right to privacy
- If justices are seen to be using judicial review to advance their own policy preferences, they risk the authority of the court and the trust the public have in it
- Recently there has been an increase in decisions made 5-4
- Massachusetts v. EPA - 2007 - letting environmental agencies regulate greenhouse gasses
- Recently there has been an increase in decisions made 5-4
- Federalism is an important part of the American way of life and of the constitution
- Undermining this by striking down state laws, denies states their legitimate and fundamental rights to protect their individual, regional ways of life
- Roe v. Wade 1954 - A woman wanted to have an abortion but Texas law allowed it only in the case of proven **** - the court case set a precedent that legalised abortion across the whole of America
- Reversing SCOTUS decisions within a small space of time can also challenge the court's authority
- The constitution is very vague in parts and subject to interpretation - no one can claim to understand it fully
- A term of abuse for decisions with which the speaker disagrees - the overriding of legislation or the reversal of previous SCOTUS precedents
- Justified
Similar Government & Politics resources:
Teacher recommended
Teacher recommended
Teacher recommended
Comments
No comments have yet been made