Judiciary Assignment Essay

298 Words2 Pages
1. Describe these two judicial philosophies. Judicial Activism is when judges/courts do not strictly stick to the interpretation of a law, but create a new one. Easily explained, when an issue is being ruled upon, courts establish a new law to rule broadly on the issue rather than limit their verdict. 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. What are the differences between the two? Basically, Judicial Activism means that judges use their own political and personal thoughts to influence/help rule on a legal matter. Judicial Restraint means that judges do not use their own political and personal thoughts to influence/help rule on a legal matter. 3. What role did this debate play in the confirmations of Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor? Thomas and Sotomayor follow which philosophy? Sonia Sotomayer and Clarence Thomas both had strong ethnic backgrounds and had strong beliefs on race in law. From the beginning, both said that race and ethnic beliefs would not come in the way of decision making. Sotomayer made it apparent that she followed the Judicial Restraint philosophy and ultimately believe “what the constitution/laws stated is exactly how they are supposed to be interpreted”, not personal thoughts included. Thomas was the complete opposite, concluding that he followed the Judicial Activism philosophy. But, after reading research, it can be determined that no matter what philosophy that they followed, the judges background and ethnicity influenced their rulings and public
Open Document