When is judicial activism warranted by the Supreme Court?(1 point) Responses if there is a case where the court disagrees with a previous decision of the lower court if there is a case where the court disagrees with a previous decision of the lower court when there is a need to decide on constitutional issues when there is a need to decide on constitutional issues if a case is highly publicized in the media if a case is highly publicized in the media in any case that is appealed to it

Answer 1

Judicial activism may be warranted by the Supreme Court in the following scenarios:

1. When the court disagrees with a previous decision of a lower court: If the Supreme Court finds a lower court's decision to be inconsistent with established legal principles or precedents, it may engage in judicial activism to rectify what it perceives as an error.

2. When there is a need to decide on constitutional issues: The Supreme Court is responsible for interpreting and applying the Constitution. Therefore, when a case presents important constitutional questions or involves potential violations of constitutional rights, the court may engage in judicial activism to safeguard or redefine constitutional interpretation.

3. If a case is highly publicized in the media: Although the level of media attention does not inherently warrant judicial activism, highly publicized cases often involve significant legal or social implications. In such instances, the Supreme Court may feel compelled to address the matter more actively to ensure public trust and maintain faith in the judicial system.

4. In any case that is appealed to it: As the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court has the authority to review and decide on a wide range of cases. It may employ judicial activism in any situation it deems necessary, irrespective of the case's specific characteristics or contextual details.

It is important to note that judicial activism is often a subjective term, subject to differing interpretations and perspectives. Some individuals may view certain instances as activism, while others may see them as necessary judicial evolution in response to changing societal values and constitutional interpretation.