Question:

Explain the concept of judicial activism and judicial restraint in the context of the Supreme Court of the United States. Compare and contrast these two approaches to judicial decision making. Provide an example for each approach and discuss the potential impacts they can have on society.

Answer:

The concept of judicial activism and judicial restraint refers to the different ways in which judges interpret and apply the law, particularly in relation to the Constitution. Judicial activism involves judges actively shaping public policy and interpreting the Constitution in light of evolving societal values. On the other hand, judicial restraint involves judges adhering closely to the original intent of the Constitution and deferring to the legislative and executive branches.

Comparison:

1. Judicial Activism:

   • Definition: Judicial activism refers to the tendency of judges to interpret the Constitution in a way that reflects contemporary values and social justice concerns.

   • Example: In the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court of the United States took an activist approach by ruling that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. The Court based its decision on the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, even though at the time of its ratification in 1868, racial segregation was still widely practiced.

   • Impact on society: Judicial activism can have a positive impact on society as it allows the Court to adapt the Constitution to changing times and address legal and social injustices. However, critics argue that it can lead to an overreach of judicial power and undermine democratic processes.

2. Judicial Restraint:

   • Definition: Judicial restraint refers to the practice of judges limiting their interpretation of the Constitution to its original intent, relying on the text and the framers' understanding at the time of its enactment.

   • Example: In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012), the Supreme Court demonstrated restraint by upholding the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as constitutional. This decision hinged on interpreting the individual mandate as a tax, and the Court did not strike it down, even though many argued it exceeded Congress's authority to regulate commerce.

   • Impact on society: Judicial restraint provides stability and predictability in the interpretation of the Constitution as it adheres closely to the original intent. Critics, however, argue that this approach can be overly rigid and hinder progress or fail to address evolving societal needs.

In summary, judicial activism involves judges actively shaping public policy in line with contemporary values, while judicial restraint involves judges adhering to the original intent of the Constitution. Both approaches have their merits and limitations in terms of their potential impact on society.