There is no one definitive answer to when judicial activism is warranted by the Supreme Court as it is subjective and depends on various factors. However, some situations where judicial activism may be considered justified include:
- When there is a need to protect individual rights and liberties that may be violated by legislation or government actions.
- When there is a case involving interpreting and applying the Constitution to evolving societal norms and values.
- When there is a significant legal or societal issue at stake that requires the Court to take an active role in shaping policy and resolving conflicts.
Ultimately, the decision to engage in judicial activism is up to the individual justices and their interpretation of the law and the Constitution.
When is judicial activism warranted by the Supreme Court?
Mark as Complete
(1 point)
If a case is highly publicized in the media
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
In any case that is appealed to it
3 answers
When is judicial activism warranted by the Supreme Court?
There is no one definitive answer to when judicial activism is warranted by the Supreme Court as it is subjective and depends on various factors. Some common situations where judicial activism may be considered justified include:
1. When there is a need to protect individual rights and liberties that may be violated by legislation or government actions. The Court may take an active role in ensuring that fundamental rights are upheld and protected.
2. When there is a significant legal or societal issue at stake that requires the Court to take an active role in shaping policy and resolving conflicts. This could involve interpreting the Constitution in light of current social, economic, or technological developments.
3. When there is a case involving interpreting and applying the Constitution to evolving societal norms and values. The Court may be called upon to address gaps or ambiguities in the Constitution and adapt its interpretation to meet current circumstances.
4. When there is a need to check the power of other branches of government. The Court may engage in judicial activism to serve as a check and balance, ensuring that the legislative and executive branches act within the bounds of the Constitution.
However, it is important to note that the concept of judicial activism is often debated, and some argue that the Court should primarily focus on strict interpretation of the law rather than actively shaping policy. The determination of when judicial activism is warranted ultimately lies in the hands of the individual justices and their interpretation of constitutional principles.
1. When there is a need to protect individual rights and liberties that may be violated by legislation or government actions. The Court may take an active role in ensuring that fundamental rights are upheld and protected.
2. When there is a significant legal or societal issue at stake that requires the Court to take an active role in shaping policy and resolving conflicts. This could involve interpreting the Constitution in light of current social, economic, or technological developments.
3. When there is a case involving interpreting and applying the Constitution to evolving societal norms and values. The Court may be called upon to address gaps or ambiguities in the Constitution and adapt its interpretation to meet current circumstances.
4. When there is a need to check the power of other branches of government. The Court may engage in judicial activism to serve as a check and balance, ensuring that the legislative and executive branches act within the bounds of the Constitution.
However, it is important to note that the concept of judicial activism is often debated, and some argue that the Court should primarily focus on strict interpretation of the law rather than actively shaping policy. The determination of when judicial activism is warranted ultimately lies in the hands of the individual justices and their interpretation of constitutional principles.
1 answer