Write A 2-3 Page APA Style Paper On Judicial Activism Presen ✓ Solved

Write A 2 3 Page Apa Style Paper Onjudicial Activism Present The Arg

Write a 2-3 page, APA style paper on judicial activism. Present the arguments on both sides of the question as to whether judges should interpret or simply apply the Constitution. Research and provide more current examples (the current Supreme Court docket) and predict how you think the justices will decide. Then think about the idea that if one can predict the decisions of the justices on the Supreme Court--where does that leave the idea that no case is prejudged? Please include 2-3 references.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Judicial activism and judicial restraint represent two contrasting philosophies regarding the role of judges in interpreting the Constitution. While judicial activism advocates for judges to interpret the Constitution to promote social justice and adapt to contemporary issues, judicial restraint emphasizes adherence to the original intent of the framers and minimal judicial intervention. This paper explores both perspectives, examining current examples from the Supreme Court's docket, predicting potential outcomes, and contemplating the implications of predictable judicial decisions on the perception of impartiality in the judiciary.

Arguments for Judicial Activism

Proponents of judicial activism argue that judges should interpret the Constitution as a living document, capable of evolving to meet societal needs. This approach allows courts to address issues that the legislative branch may neglect or be unable to resolve effectively. For example, in recent cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, illustrating activism in expanding individual rights (Eskridge, 2020). Similarly, in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the Court struck down restrictive abortion laws to protect women's healthcare, highlighting a role for the judiciary to safeguard individual liberties (Guttmacher Institute, 2023).

Arguments for Judicial Restraint

On the other hand, advocates of judicial restraint believe that judges should interpret the Constitution based on its original meaning and leave policy decisions to elected representatives. They argue that activism can lead to the judiciary overstepping its bounds and undermining democratic processes. For instance, the late Justice Antonin Scalia was a prominent supporter of originalism, contending that courts should avoid making policy and instead adhere strictly to constitutional text (Kalt, 2021). Critics warn that over-activism may politicize the judiciary, eroding public trust.

Current Supreme Court Docket and Predictions

The current Supreme Court docket features several high-profile cases that exemplify ongoing debates over judicial philosophy. Notably, cases involving voting rights, religious freedoms, and environmental regulations are at the forefront. For example, the case Moore v. Harper considers issues of partisan gerrymandering, with predictions suggesting the Court might limit federal oversight of district drawing, potentially aligning with textualist, conservative judicial philosophies (Smith, 2023). Based on the current ideological makeup of the Court, with a 6-3 conservative majority, many believe the justices will lean towards narrow interpretations of administrative and voting rights laws, favoring restraint over activism. However, the Court's recent willingness to overturn precedents indicates some openness to activism when perceived as necessary.

Predictability and the Question of Prejudgment

The ability to predict judicial decisions raises questions about the objectivity and impartiality of the Court. If decisions appear preordained based on ideology, it challenges the notion that cases are decided purely on legal merits. Critics argue that such predictability reduces public confidence in the judiciary, suggesting that case outcomes are influenced by ideological biases rather than impartial interpretation (Brown & Miller, 2022). This tension underscores the importance of transparency and adherence to constitutional principles to maintain legitimacy and public trust in judicial processes.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the debate over judicial activism versus restraint remains central to understanding the role of the judiciary. While activism enables courts to address evolving societal concerns, restraint seeks to preserve the Constitution's original meaning. Current cases and the Court's predictable ideological leanings highlight both the influence of judicial philosophy and the potential impact on public perception. Ultimately, balancing judicial independence with accountability is essential to ensure that justice is both fair and perceived as fair.

References

• Brown, T. & Miller, S. (2022). Judicial Decision-Making and Public Trust. Harvard Law Review.
• Eskridge, W. (2020). Living Constitution, Changing Society. Yale Law Journal.
• Guttmacher Institute. (2023). Supreme Court Decisions on Reproductive Rights. https://www.guttmacher.org
• Kalt, B. (2021). Originalism and Judicial Philosophy. Stanford Law Review.
• Smith, J. (2023). Predictions for the Supreme Court's Current Cases. Judicial Watch.