Judicial Activism Vs. Judicial Restraint in America

Introduction

As we rely on our judicial system more and more to protect the rights of the citizens in the United States, we must review the concepts of judicial restraint versus that of judicial activism. The concept of judicial restraint encourages judges to almost “police” themselves when utilizing their judicial powers. Under this concept, we are looking at judges limiting the exercise of their own power and only using their power if they feel that a law or verdict is unconstitutional (Kemic, 2004). The issue that we have then encountered is what determines if it is really unconstitutional, as this has come to show realization that the view is varied in these regards too.

Judicial Activism Vs. Judicial Restraint in America

When analyzing the differences between judicial restraint and judicial activism, we are indeed looking at complete opposites. Judicial activism involves the interpretation of the Constitution, where judicial restraint limits the power that a judge has to strike down a law and is fact-based without interpretation. In judicial restraint, judges uphold the law and do not strike down anything unless it is found unconstitutional. Judicial activism, on the other hand, has a great influence on social policies, which have become more and more prevalent in our society today. In judicial activism, judges are given the power to overturn rulings and laws when Constitutional bodies are felt to not be acting appropriately (Smith, 2018).

The Balance Between Judicial Approaches

When analyzing the backgrounds and rulings that have occurred under Justice Sotomayor and Justice Thomas, we find a perfect balance of judicial activism through Justice Sotomayor, and judicial restraint through Justice Thomas. These two individuals, while working for the same common goal, have two very different approaches which assisted them in their being nominated to the Supreme Court. This balance allows for the panel to be well-rounded, helping to achieve outcomes on rulings that are necessary to continue to move decisions along and maintain societal satisfaction with the laws and governance taking place.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the interplay between judicial activism and judicial restraint is crucial in shaping the legal landscape of the United States. Each approach has its merits and drawbacks, and the diversity of thought brought by justices like Sotomayor and Thomas ensures that the judiciary remains a dynamic and responsive branch of government. As our society evolves, the ongoing debate between these two judicial philosophies will undoubtedly continue to influence the protection of citizens' rights and the interpretation of the Constitution (Johnson, 2019).

References

Kemic, J. (2004). Judicial Restraint: A Historical Perspective. Washington Law Review, 79(3), 567-598.

Smith, A. (2018). The Impact of Judicial Activism on American Society. Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 42(2), 345-379.

Johnson, L. (2019). The Role of the Supreme Court in Balancing Judicial Approaches. Yale Law Journal, 128(5), 1109-1150.