Please explain Judicial activism and Judicial restraint?

mrwonderfull

an activist judge can circumvent the process of senate and congressional deliberation on the interpretation of the meaning of the rights guaranteed in the bill of rights or constitution,in effect they can rule by decree,similar to a dictator ,as an example roe V wade and abortion rights.it is a stretch of the imagination how a judge extracts those things from the constitution or bill of rights. you have to travel back in time to understand the reason the constitution and bill of rights are worded as they were,have you ever heard of mass abortions or even gay marriages in colonial times?i have never read one word about such things my self in any history book i have ever read.judicial restraint is when a judge resist popular demand to edit or interpret the same laws and rules to satisfy a political or social ruling that goes against the ideals of the original framers of the constitution and bill of rights.regardless of the disappointment of a special interest groups large or small.the constitution has had some modifications since it was drafted to encompass the will of the majority of the people,and most were done in the regular way the government was meant to do it by conciseness of the representatives dully elected by the people,the problem is if to many liberal judges occupy the supreme court they can use their positions to forcibly impose laws that are contrary to the principals and spirit of the constitution and bill of rights,conservative judges are not likely to issue decrees according to political pholosipy that despoils the value of the law.when you read of a lawless nation thats one where laws can be changed at will or whim,thats why a conservative court is better in all round rulings,watch what happen soon,we might wake up to a new world where the time honored rights as we have known them will no longer be.

FRAGINAL-NOYPI

Judicial activism is a philosophy advocating that judges should reach beyond the Constitution to achieve results that are consistent with contemporary conditions and values. Most often, it is associated with (modern) liberalism that believes in broad interpretation of the Constitution which can then be applied to specific issues.

Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional

Enter Your Message or Comment

User Name:
User Email:
Post a comment: