What Judicial Philosophy Should Guide The Supreme Cou 783665

What judicial philosophy should guide the Supreme Court's exercise of judicial review

In the ongoing debate about the role and powers of the Supreme Court, a primary consideration concerns the judicial philosophy that should guide its exercise of judicial review. Judicial review, the process by which courts assess the constitutionality of legislative acts, is fundamental to the American legal system. The philosophies that influence how justices interpret the Constitution—namely judicial activism and judicial restraint—greatly impact the Court's legitimacy, functionality, and relationship with democratic institutions. As such, I contend that a judicial philosophy rooted in judicial restraint should guide the Supreme Court's exercise of judicial review to maintain a balance between protecting constitutional principles and respecting the will of the elected branches.

Defining Judicial Philosophy and its Role

Judicial philosophy refers to the underlying principles and attitudes that justices employ when interpreting the Constitution and applying the law. Two prominent philosophies are judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judicial activism advocates for a proactive role in shaping policy, often leading justices to overturn legislation if they believe it conflicts with constitutional principles or justice. Conversely, judicial restraint emphasizes deference to legislative judgments and interprets the Constitution narrowly, limiting the judiciary’s role and respecting the democratic process.

The Case for Judicial Restraint

Adopting a judicial restraint philosophy aligns with preserving the legitimacy and stability of the judiciary. Supporters argue that judges should interpret the Constitution based on its original meaning or the intent of its framers, thus maintaining consistency and avoiding judicial overreach. As Breyer (2011) emphasizes, judges should seek to "build confidence in the courts" by exercising caution and restraint, ensuring that they do not overstep their constitutional role of interpreting laws rather than creating policy. This approach sustains the democratic principle that elected legislators are accountable to voters, whereas judges serve as guardians of constitutional constraints rather than policy makers (Epstein et al., 2019).

Counterarguments and the Value of Judicial Activism

Opponents of judicial restraint assert that rigid adherence to originalism or minimal intervention can deprive courts of the ability to adapt to social progress or protect minority rights. Judicial activism critics argue that the Supreme Court sometimes must intervene to uphold rights not explicitly enshrined in the original text, such as privacy rights or same-sex marriage (Finkelman, 2010). For example, Roe v. Wade (1973) exemplifies the Court’s proactive stance to uphold a fundamental right, which some consider necessary to adapt constitutional principles to evolving societal norms. Hence, proponents of activism contend that courts must sometimes interpret the Constitution as a living document capable of addressing contemporary issues.

Balancing Judicial Restraint and Activism

While acknowledging the importance of judicial activism in certain circumstances, I believe the overarching philosophy should favor restraint. Such an approach fosters respect for democratic processes, preventing courts from becoming policymaking bodies. It encourages justices to interpret laws within their constitutional boundaries, reserving activism for cases where fundamental rights are at stake or constitutional amendments are necessary. This balanced stance aligns with the original intent of the framers and sustains public confidence in the judiciary’s impartiality (Sunstein, 2005).

Should Judicial Review Be Limited by Constitutional Amendments?

Regarding whether judicial review should be limited by a constitutional amendment, I argue that such limitations are unnecessary and potentially detrimental. The power of judicial review, established in Marbury v. Madison (1803), serves as a vital check on legislative overreach and protects minority rights against majoritarian tyranny. Restricting this power through amendments risks undermining the independence and authority of the judiciary, potentially leaving constitutional protections vulnerable to political whims (Neumann, 2018). Instead, maintaining judicial review within the context of constitutional principles ensures that courts can serve as guardians of the Constitution without becoming politicized or unduly constrained.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a judicial philosophy grounded in judicial restraint offers the most balanced approach for the Supreme Court’s exercise of judicial review. It respects the democratic process by deferentially interpreting laws and the Constitution, while reserving activism for cases involving fundamental rights or constitutional amendments. Furthermore, the power of judicial review should remain an inherent feature of the judiciary, not restricted by amendments, to safeguard constitutional integrity and uphold the rule of law. This approach enhances the legitimacy of the Court and ensures it continues to serve as an impartial interpreter of the Constitution in an evolving society.

References

• Breyer, S. (2011). No small wonder. Wilson Quarterly, 35(3), 60-61.
• Epstein, L., et al. (2019). Constitutional Law for a Changing America: Rights, Liberties, and Justice. CQ Press.
• Finkelman, P. (2010). Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000. Routledge.
• Gallup Inc. (2012). U.S. Supreme Court approval ratings. Gallup.
• Neumann, J. (2018). Judicial Power and the Making of International Law. Cambridge University Press.
• Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do. Oxford University Press.