Some people believe that the Constitution was written to be taken literally and only that. Other people believe the Constitution is a "living and breathing document". Regardless of what people believe, it is the judiciary system that must interpret the Constitution.
Judicial restraint is the belief that the court system should try to preserve the "original intent" or sanctity of the Constitution. The individuals who believe in judicial restraint tend to be strict constructionists. In Supreme Court history, a Chief Justice who prided himself on being a strict constructionist was Warren Earl Burger. Ironically, he was also the Chief Justice presiding over many transformative cases such as Roe v. Wade, U of C Regents v. Bakke, and Buckley v. Valeo. Roe v. Wade ruled that abortion was legal as long as the woman was within the first trimester of her pregnancy. U of C Regents v. Bakke was a case that dealt with affirmative action in college admissions. Bakke wanted to attend the University of California-Davis medical school, but was denied although his grades were better than those of people in the seats designated for women and minorities. The Court ruled in favor of Bakke, in the end. In Buckley v. Valeo, it was determined that money was a form of speech, so was protected under the first Amendment to the Constitution. In truth, these rulings seemed revolutionary.
This leads us to the definition of judicial activism. Judicial activism is the belief that the court system should take a more broad interpretation of the Constitution and take more responsibility for righting the wrongs of the society as a whole. There were many a disturbed person about the Supreme Court rulings for cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson, and Dred Scott v. Sanford. Plessy was one-eighth black and could pass as white. Thus, he tried to ride a White Only railway car, but he got caught. It was determined that the black and white cars were "separate but equal", thus justifying racial segregation. In Dred Scott v. Sanford, Dred Scott was a black man who wanted his freedom since he had lived different parts of his life in free states. The court ruled that Scott was still considered property. The Justice responsible for at least one of these cases was Taney. It is a common wish that judicial activism would have been preferred on the issue of slavery long before it was actually resolved.
I really do not know which philosophy I would adhere to if I was given the opportunity to sit on the Supreme Court. I really admire the word of Chief Justice John Marshall. He made some landmark decisions, setting up the power of judicial review of the court system. Marbury v. Madison made it so the Supreme Court could declare congressional acts unconstitutional. McCullough v. Maryland made it so the Supreme Court could declare state acts unconstitutional (especially if they interfered in the running of the United States government). Marshall seemed to stick to judicial restraint and he did great things for this country. Earl Warren took on more of a judicial activism view with the Brown v. Board of Education case that desegregated our national school system. That case was definitely a turning point for America.
If I based the chosen philosophy on my sense of justice, I would choose the judicial activism view at my current age. I have a strong belief in equality for everyone. Plus, I believe that individuals should be allowed to redress their grievances and those grievances of society as a whole. When I am older, I might think differently, as it is likely that Supreme Court Justices' thoughts and beliefs evolved over time.
Alexander Hamilton said he believed the judiciary branch was the "least dangerous" branch of the government because it had "neither sword nor purse". I disagree with that statement, although I acknowledge its brilliance. I believe the Supreme Court could be quite dangerous if the Justices took on judicial activism at full force.
No comments:
Post a Comment