If you were a Supreme Court justice...
Would you take part in judicial activism or judicial restraint? Why?
What beliefs and principles would you take into consideration when making decisions in court?
Thanksssss =]
2006-12-11 08:04:23 · 7 answers · asked by Lina 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
I'll be honest here, I have an essay to right and would just like to see other people's stands on this before hand....thanks =]
2006-12-11 08:10:24 · update #1
i meant write*...sry =\
2006-12-11 08:10:38 · update #2
I would definitely view judicial restraint as the correct method. The law has to be interperted consistently to be effective. If we interpert freedom of speech one way and then five years later interpert it completely differently, our legal system would be in chaos. You have to look at precedent as the major basis for all legal decision, what has been done in the past should be done in the future.
If we have three people all being charged with DWI and we throw the first in jail for life, give the second one his keys and tell him to have a nice day, and fine the third one and impound his car, our system would be very inconsistent and unfair. Consistency in legal decisions leads to equality and fairness as everyone is treated equally.
2006-12-11 08:12:24 · answer #1 · answered by msi_cord 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I would probably favor a conservative approach to my decisions. I would not try to read into the law more than what is there, nor try to create law with my decisions. Judicial restraint is favorable. We take the law as it is and state what that law means when applied to certain facts. Freedom of religion is a good example where both principles are actively being lobbied. Congress shall make no establishment of religion nor proscribe the free exercise thereof. The intent was to not force the people, taxpayers, to officially support a particular religion as had been done in Europe from whence our forebears derived. We have used judicial activism to extend a simple principle into a complex proscription against any official recognition of the existence of religion, particularly the religion of the majority of the people, Christian. This is not what was intended. Judicial restraint would have thrown out many of the decisions that activists have passed. My beliefs and principles would keep me from imposing on others and keep the government out of issues it has no business touching. The government should only be involved in those things that the people cannot reasonable provide for themselves, like the common defence and interstate commerce.
2006-12-11 16:17:30 · answer #2 · answered by rac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Judicial Restraint. I am politically conservative and too many judges are so arrogant so as to think it is their responsibility to MAKE law. That is the legislature's responsibility. Now practically speaking, I know that sometimes this can't be avoided since legislatures can't foresee every set of circumstances, but I would be very reluctant to go and decide issues that might have very broad legal and policy impact.
2006-12-11 16:14:24 · answer #3 · answered by lmnop 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
look up the words to your question in a dictionary if you dont understand it and answer your own question..
think of it this way: think of something that your passionate about.. now, would you rather want to use someone elses views on that or you own?
Theres a reason its asked to you.. for you to know what it means & for you to be able to have your own views.. i.e: freedom of speech
2006-12-11 16:17:31 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They really should n't have personal feelings. They are only to interepret law as it is already written.
2006-12-11 16:12:49 · answer #5 · answered by nor2006 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'd think Grrrruuuaaaaaaahhh.....Like Howard Dean.
2006-12-11 16:06:44 · answer #6 · answered by Rod Farva 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
homework alert
2006-12-11 16:08:44 · answer #7 · answered by Nunya B 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋