You must have Credits on your Balance to download this sample
Pages 3 (753 words)
Judicial Activism is the act of a Judge to decide upon a case on his own without referring to the constitution or against the public law. Judges are to abide by the provisions of constitution and the common law, which protect the public interest. But, in a very few cases, they are pressurized to protect the personal interest of a group of people by virtue of political ideologies and/or for personal gain…
The United States of America has a checking system of judicial activism to ensure that it is minimal and public interests are mostly protected. According to Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, judicial activism is "the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent" (Jha).
The supporters of judicial interpretations have different philosophies and the most debated among them are strict constructionists and those who believe in living constitution. A strict constructionist is one who believes that the words and phrases used in the law and constitution are static and hence there are limited instances of interpretations. U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has been dubbed a "strict constructionist" -- someone who believes the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted exactly as its original authors intended" (Chadwick Alex). The main outcome of this philosophy is that judgment is based on what is written in the law and not on what it should be. Some of the popular supporters of this argument include Supreme Court of the United States Justice Hugo Black and former U.S. ...
Not exactly what you need?