A lot of magistrates go beyond the constitution and statutes words and use their own political and personal thoughts. Judicial Restraint is the complete opposite of Judicial Activism. The judges should not introduce or instill their own personal or political beliefs into the law. The power and decision of the judges on a verdict should be strictly follow the law and US Constitution. 2.
The Supreme Court is made up of many justices that have beliefs in two different judicial philosophies. These two philosophies are that of judicial activism and strict constructionism. These philosophies differ quite a bit from one another, but they both work toward the same main goal. Both philosophies play a part in court cases, mainly when it comes to deciding on a final ruling or holding. Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy that states that a court has the right to, and should go beyond what is stated in the Constitution about an issue that is being brought up and look towards “broader” suggestions of the impending decision on said issue.
Martin’s argument on how the Charter is antidemocratic has six main premises. Firstly, Martin supports his claim by making a point that judges, as they hold no accountability for what their judgments, can “overturn deliberate policy decisions made by the elected representatives of the people where those decisions do not accord with the way the judges interpret the Charter.” Thus, the Charter, according to Martin, is antidemocratic. Secondly, Martin discerns the differences between liberalism and democracy, creating operational definitions for each. He explains that liberalism “is about individual rights,” and is “about the ability of individuals to do as they please without interference from the state.” Therefore, according to Martin, Liberalism “makes protection of the autonomy of the individual more important than the promotion of the welfare of the
Judicial review is the right, or duty, the court has to review the constitutionality of legislation and/or actions taken by the executive branch. The court has the right to choose its cases, but these are brought before them not sought after by the court. What is the separation of powers? This is a form of checks and balances between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. They are in place so as to contain the power of any one branch attempting to overstep its authority and act in a tyrannical matter.
The Sixth amendment protects the accused upon the case against him. The Right to Counsel is given to everyone and this constitutional mandate adheres to the constitution. An accused may choose his own if his means permit him to do so. If not, however, and it is upon the court to appoint who shall represent him, the accused has no say of who will be appointed for him since what is contemplated by law is the essence of a competent lawyer’s presence. The right of self-representation may, of course, be opted upon refusal to receive the services of the one appointed by the court, but it shall still be in conformity with the set guidelines for the same right (Tomkovicz,
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint Judicial restraint is a doctrine which encourages the judiciary to adhere closely to the wording of the law, be mindful of precedent, and should defer to decisions made by legislatures. In other words, it is a doctrine that urges judges to refrain from incorporating their own philosophies or personal preferences into the law in order to avoid misconstruction of the law. This is based on the concept that judges are to apply the law rather than determine it. One example is Luther v. Borden (1849).
By doing this it would lead the democracy to a dictatorship. The separation of powers is another way to ensure that checks and balances are being enforced and followed through. Caplan brings the issue of the debate of the meaning of separation of powers, “…the separation of powers means that each branch has exclusive control of matters in its domain or whether the Constitution generally gives Congress and the president overlapping, or blended, powers, all of which are quite extensive but none of which obviously serves as an absolute trump to the other,” (Caplan 21-2) So the presidential power used in the issue of foreign policy has been somewhat validated by this statement
The rules of our country are meant to keep Patriotism alive. Because of the fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, it is easier to show your patriotism. Also, those who disagree with the opinions of a neighbor do not have the right to declare them wrong. And even someone doing the bare minimum is still doing something to help. If everyone in this nation tried just a little harder to help boost and support the economy, then we would not only be more Patriotically unified, but it would really do some good in helping repair the state of the
So how can judge create law through the doctrine of precedent? The basic doctrine means every court in the UK is bound to follow any decision made by a superior court and in general, appellate courts are bound by their own decisions. Although this appears that the courts are not allowed to develop law, there are ways in which the judicial precedent can be avoided, in turn, allowing
This was further elaborated by Maoz and Russett (1993) that political disputes among democratic countries are settled through compromises instead of the destruction of the opposite side. Proponents of liberalism do agree that clashes in interests among liberal democracies are common but their solutions taken will not far off from the set of boundaries that are set by each country in dealing with foreign matters. Dixon (1994) termed such behavior as “bounded competition” in which countries vowed to regulate rivalry in clashes of interest in a peaceful and nonviolent step. It is worth noticing that there are non-liberal countries like Saudi Arabia may share a diplomatic relationship with liberal democracies like America.