When is judicial activism warranted by the Supreme Court?

Question

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
If a case is highly publicized in the media
In any case, that is appealed to it

Answer 1

Judicial activism can be justified by the Supreme Court in a variety of circumstances. These include:

1. Disagreement with a previous decision: If the Supreme Court disagrees with a previous decision made by a lower court, it may choose to exercise judicial activism to overturn or modify that decision.

2. Constitutional issues: When there is a need to interpret and decide upon constitutional issues, the Supreme Court may engage in judicial activism to ensure the protection of individual rights or provide clarity on constitutional matters.

3. Significance and public attention: Highly publicized cases that generate significant public interest may warrant judicial activism as the Supreme Court seeks to address the concerns of the public and uphold the principles of justice.

4. Appeals: In any case that is appealed to the Supreme Court, the justices have the discretion to engage in judicial activism if they believe it is necessary to address the legal conflicts or protect constitutional rights.

However, it is important to note that the concept of judicial activism is subjective and controversial. Different interpretations of the law and the role of the judiciary can lead to varying opinions on when and how judicial activism should be warranted.