0
Is Brown v Board of Education considered judicial activism or judicial restraint?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954) has often been cited as an example of liberal judicial activismbecause it ignored the doctrine of stare decisis (Latin: let the decision stand) by overturning the long-accepted "separate but equal" standard established in Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896) and reinterpreting the 13th and 14th Amendments in a manner that supported African-Americans' civil rights.
Progressives hasten to point out that Plessy was a bad precedent, and the Warren Court simply corrected social and political biases that were not intended when the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified. One could just as easily say the Plessy case was an example of judicial activism.
Bear in mind that "judicial activism" is an ambiguous concept relative to a person's point-of-view and interpretation of the Constitution, and is the result of subjective judgment both on the part of the justices ruling on a case and on the part of the individuals analyzing the Court's decision
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Wiki User
∙ 11y agoThe answer would be judicial restraint. Plessy v Ferguson strictly employed judicial restraint because it followed the principle of stare decisis or went with the precedent decision. It went against the concept of civil rights and giving freedoms to African Americans and was generally conservative in its ruling.
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How does judicial activism and judicial restraint affect the separation of powers?
Judicial activism weakens the separation of powers by involving the Court in what are traditionally executive and legislative functions. Judicial restraint reinforces separation of powers.
Was Miranda v. Arizona considered judicial restraint or judicial activism?
Neither. The court simply ruled that people need to be advised of rights they had always been entitled to. --- Activism, because the Court invented a new rule. They used their power broadly to further justice instead of just allowing the decisions of the other branches of government to stand. It's true that their rights were already there, but that's not the determining factor of Judicial activism/restraint.
Was Gore v Bush judicial restraint or overreach?
It did not seem to be judicial activism as there wasn't a larger issue at hand. Rather, the final decision appears historically to be judicial partisanship.
What is judicial restraint?
Judicial restraint is the philosophy that judges and justices should defer to written legislation whenever possible, if it is not in conflict with the Constitution. A justice who uses judicial restraint tends to take a narrower view of the Constitution and does not attempt to broaden the definition of Amendments to fit a particular social or political agenda. The opposite of judicial restraint is judicial activism. For more information on the debate between judicial activism and judicial restrain, see Related Links, below.
This type of judicial philosophy called?
The types of judicial philosophy include judicial activism, judicial restraint, loose constructionism and strict constructionism.
Compare Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism?
Judicial restraint is the theory that judges should limit their exercise of power and strike down laws only when they are obviously unconstitutional, and always follow precedents set by older courts. Judicial activism is the opposite view, and is sometimes meant to imply politically motivated judicial decisions.
What Judicial philosophy states that the court should uphold acts of the Congress unless acts violate specific provisions of the Constitution?
Judicial restraint. The opposite of judicial restraint is judicial activism.For more information about the controversy over judicial activism and judicial restraint, see Related Questions, below.
What is judicial restraint in deciding case?
Judicial restraint is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism. In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature.
Does judicial restraint rely on the principle of stare decisis?
Doctrinalism relies on the principle of stare decisis.Judicial restraint relies on a narrow interpretation of the text of the Constitution and the Framers' inferred intent in decision-making. If the precedent being relied upon under stare decisis was made using judicial restraint, then adhering to the precedent also involves judicial restraint; if the controlling precedent being used represents an instance of judicial activism, then upholding the precedent also requires a (lesser) degree of judicial activism.The concepts of judicial restraint and judicial activism relate to decisions based on a particular theoretical view of the Constitution and its purpose. Stare decisis relates to consistency in upholding case law, regardless of whether the precedent was originally determined via activism or restraint.
Did the Warren Court believe in judicial activism or judicial restraint?
The Warren Court, which was active from 1953 until Chief Justice Earl Warren retired in 1969, is often accused of judicial activism for its many decisions supporting African-Americans' civil rights. Whether they believed they were judicial activists or not is unknown.
Was Judicial Activism or Judicial Restraint used in the Tinker v Des Moines case?
Judicial activism was used because the Court ruled that the school policy prohibiting the students from wearing the arm bands to protest symbolically the Vietnam War violated the students' free speech rights. By overturning a policy of the government (the public school's policy), the Court exercised judicial activism.
What is it called when judges use their power broadly to further justice?
Judicial activism is when judges user their power to further justice. This is as opposed to judicial restraint which is when a judge limits their power.
