โ๏ธ Topic Summary
Judicial activism refers to a judicial philosophy where judges are willing to strike down laws or governmental actions as unconstitutional, and to even chart new constitutional ground, often considering broader societal implications and current needs rather than strictly adhering to precedent or the original intent of the Constitution. This approach contrasts with judicial restraint, where judges are more inclined to defer to the legislative and executive branches, limiting their own power and focusing solely on interpreting existing law rather than making new policy.
For AP Government, understanding judicial activism involves recognizing its historical context, such as the Warren Court era, and its impact on landmark decisions that have shaped American society. It's crucial to grasp how this philosophy influences the balance of power among the branches of government and sparks debates about the proper role of the judiciary in a democratic society.
๐ง Part A: Vocabulary
- ๐ Judicial Activism: A judicial philosophy that encourages judges to go beyond interpreting the law and consider broader societal implications and public policy when making decisions, often striking down laws.
- โจ Judicial Restraint: A judicial philosophy where judges limit the exercise of their own power, deferring to the legislative and executive branches, and strictly interpreting the Constitution based on its original meaning or established precedent.
- ๐ Judicial Review: The power of the Supreme Court to determine if a law or government action violates the Constitution, established in Marbury v. Madison.
- ๐ Stare Decisis: The legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions, meaning "to stand by things decided."
- ๐๏ธ Precedent: A legal principle or rule created by a court decision that provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later.
Match the term to its definition:
1. The power of the Supreme Court to determine if a law or government action violates the Constitution.
2. A judicial philosophy where judges limit the exercise of their own power, deferring to the legislative and executive branches.
3. A legal principle or rule created by a court decision that provides an example or authority for judges deciding similar issues later.
4. A judicial philosophy that encourages judges to go beyond interpreting the law and consider broader societal implications.
5. The legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions.
๐ Part B: Fill in the Blanks
Complete the paragraph below using the terms provided:
(Judicial Review, Judicial Activism, Judicial Restraint, Precedent, Marbury v. Madison)
The concept of ____________________ is central to understanding the U.S. Supreme Court's power, allowing it to declare laws unconstitutional. This power was famously established in the case of ____________________. When judges practice ____________________, they tend to defer to the elected branches, adhering closely to existing law and ____________________. In contrast, ____________________ describes a philosophy where judges are more willing to strike down laws and consider broader social policy, often seen as shaping law rather than just interpreting it.
๐ค Part C: Critical Thinking
๐ก Question: Discuss the potential benefits and drawbacks of judicial activism in a democratic society. Consider how it might protect minority rights versus concerns about unelected judges making policy decisions. Provide at least two arguments for each side.