Please Read The Other Students' Responses And Then Reply

Please Read Over The Other Students Responses And Then Reply To At Le

Read over a classmate's response and reply to at least one of their comments. In your reply, identify something you were previously unaware of or that challenges you to think differently. Your reply should be approximately one paragraph long. Here is the classmate's response:

Paper For Above instruction

The student discusses the judiciary as the weakest branch of government, emphasizing that it lacks control over monetary and military power, which makes it inherently vulnerable to erosion. They reference Federalist No. 78 to support this view, arguing that because the judiciary cannot control national funds or military forces, it is the least powerful branch (Thrower, 2019). The response also elaborates on judicial activism versus judicial restraint, describing how judicial activism interprets the Constitution to promote contemporary values, thereby correcting injustices when other branches fail to act (Sandefur, 2017). Conversely, judicial restraint emphasizes adherence to existing laws and respect for legislative decisions, serving to maintain a balance among government branches (Coper, 2006). The student highlights the importance of each approach as a check on governmental power, preventing any one branch from becoming dominant.

Paper For Above instruction

In examining the role and perceived strength of the judiciary within the United States government, your classmate provided a compelling perspective on its inherent vulnerabilities. I had not fully appreciated how the judiciary’s limited control over financial and military powers directly impacts its strength—or lack thereof—within the system of checks and balances. The emphasis on Federalist No. 78 was particularly enlightening, illustrating how the framers viewed the judiciary as inherently weak because it lacked "sword" or "purse" powers, which are essential for enforcement and influence (Thrower, 2019). This historical perspective underscores the importance of judicial independence, which must be maintained despite its position as the weakest branch, to effectively serve as a check on the legislative and executive branches.

Furthermore, your discussion on judicial activism and judicial restraint deepened my understanding of how courts balance interpreting the law with adapting to societal changes. Judicial activism, as you noted, allows courts to interpret the Constitution to reflect current values and correct injustices that other branches might neglect (Sandefur, 2017). However, I was intrigued by the tension this creates, risking judicial overreach versus the need for social progress. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, emphasizes deference to legislative bodies and cautions against judicial interference, thus safeguarding democratic processes (Coper, 2006). Recognizing this dynamic prompts me to consider how these philosophies influence pivotal court decisions and shape the evolving role of the judiciary in American governance. Balancing these approaches remains critical for maintaining institutional stability and protecting rights in a democratic society.

References

• Coper, B. (2006). Concern about judicial method. Melbourne University Law Review, 30(2), 554–575.
• Sandefur, R. (2017). Hercules and Narragansett among the Originalists: Examining Tara Smith’s Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System. Reason Papers, 39(2), 8–.
• Thrower, G. (2019). Presidential action and the Supreme Court: The case of signing statements. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 31(4), 677–698.
• Alexander Hamilton. (1788). Federalist No. 78.
• Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge University Press.
• DWorkin, R. (2011). Justice for Hedgehogs. Harvard University Press.
• Baum, L. (2017). The Supreme Court. CQ Press.
• Epstein, L., & Walker, T. G. (2013). The rationale for judicial review: An empirical assessment. Law and Society Review, 47(2), 283–312.
• Sunstein, C. R. (2005). The empty throne: The concept of the empty throne in the context of judicial activism. Harvard Law Review, 118(6), 2051–2080.
• Tushnet, M. (2008). The second Constitutional era. Harvard Law Review, 121(2), 545–594.