Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

Name of Student:
Course:
Name of Tutor:
Date of Submission:
Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint
In broad terms, the term judicial activism refers to decisions, rulings or sentences made by a court of law; that are considered to have political affiliations, or personal affiliations that on the contrary override the elements of the rule of law. Just like several sensitive legal and political matters, judicial activism is a subject that has been marred with political controversy over a long duration of time. Due to the independence of judges to make rulings and interpret the constitution in cases, several judges end up with illegitimate rulings due to conceptual errors or intentional inclination to plaintiffs or defendants (Lewis 74).
One court decision that was seen to bear elements of judicial activism is the case of the Board of Education Versus Brown in the year 1954 (Lewis 57). This case overruled the racial lines set between public schools for white students and their black counterparts. This case is noted for contradicting the 1896 court decision that established the divide and for receiving a unanimous (9-0) vote from the judges. The points of contest in this case included equal opportunities and resources for students, protection and the influence of civil activism. A more recent decision is that of the Federal Election Commission Versus Citizens United in 2010 (Legal Information Institute). Bearing several elements of politics, this decision permitted corporations into political campaigns and opened doors to use of their resources in campaigns. The issue on judicial activism comes in as the Republican Party had several stakes in the corporate sector and was therefore viewed as a benefactor.
On the contrary, judicial restraint is a concept based on the limitation of personal or political inclinations in court decisions, thereby adhering to pre-existing congressional laws and declaring a law unconstitutional only when un-constitutionalism is extremely clear and obvious. In comparative terms, judicial restraint is viewed as the opposite or an antonym to judicial activism (Bansal 70).
One very famous decision that is classified as judicial restraint is the 1928 case of Holden Versus Blodgett which was based on statute interpretations. In this case, considerations of constitutionalism were pegged on the ability of an interpretation to save the intended established act. One of the famous Americans identified with this concept is the late Supreme Court Justice, Byron White. In the 1988 case of Thompson Versus Oklahoma, White felt that it was unconstitutional to apply capital punishment on minors that fall below sixteen years. In general, judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposite concepts that are ...