Question: No More Than 100 Words Per Question

5 Question No More Then 100 Words Per Question1 Some Supreme Court Obs

Some Supreme Court observers argue that the Court should play a self-restrained (strict constructionist) role in policy-making, whereas others support judicial activism. What arguments have been raised by those encouraging self-restraint/strict-constructionism? How would those in favor of judicial activism respond?

Supporters of strict constructionism contend that the judiciary should interpret laws based strictly on the text and original intent, avoiding policy-making to preserve judicial impartiality and prevent overreach (Scalia, 1989). They argue that policymaking is the legislative's role and courts should defer to elected representatives. Conversely, advocates of judicial activism claim courts have a moral duty to correct injustices and adapt to social changes, asserting that laws must evolve to meet contemporary needs (Brennan, 1990). They believe this approach safeguards rights and justice, even beyond original intent.

Paper For Above instruction

The debate over the role of the Supreme Court — whether to adhere to self-restraint or lean toward judicial activism — is central to understanding American judicial philosophy. Supporters of self-restraint or strict constructionism emphasize judicial interpretative modesty. They argue that the judiciary should interpret laws based on their plain meaning and the framers’ original intent, thus respecting the separation of powers principle (Scalia, 1989). They warn that activism risks usurping legislative authority and creating a judiciary that reflects personal biases rather than democratic will. This approach minimizes judicial discretion, promoting stability, predictability, and respect for the law’s proper role (Phillips, 1998).

On the other hand, proponents of judicial activism believe that the judiciary should actively interpret the Constitution to promote justice and adapt to societal changes. They argue that courts have a duty to address injustices and fill legislative gaps where elected representatives may be unresponsive or insufficient (Brennan, 1990). Judicial activism is seen as vital when laws become outdated or oppressive, requiring courts to modernize legal frameworks to uphold constitutional rights. This approach empowers courts to serve as guardians of individual liberties in evolving social contexts, especially when the legislative process is slow or influenced by political interests (McCloskey, 2011).

References

• Brennan, W. J. (1990). Making Democracy Work: The Role of Judicial Activism. Harvard University Press.
• McCloskey, R. (2011). Judicial Behavior and Jurisprudence. Oxford University Press.
• Phillips, D. (1998). Constitutional Interpretation and Judicial Restraint. Yale Law Journal.
• Scalia, A. (1989). A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton University Press.