Supreme Court – Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

The primary duty of the Supreme Court is to talk about and settle all matters that warrant federal consideration. As a result, the Supreme Court is an important entity in influencing public policy. To do this, the Court can govern in a manner that can be described as either judicial activism or judicial restraint. Miranda v Arizona (1966) is a case pertaining to the region of public policy that regards the rights of the accused, wherein the Court followed a policy of judicial activism. Similarly, the Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States (1964) case issues the matter of civil rights and can be classified as resulting from judicial activism.

Judicial activism is an act of judicial interpretation that final results in the creation of a new law. Judicial activism is when the Court does not adhere to precedent but alternatively acts as a legislator to establish future precedent. Judicial restraint is just the opposite it is an act of judicial interpretation exactly where a restricted judicial power is exercised. As a result of judicial restraint, the Court defines and strengthens laws are currently in existence.

With regard to the rights of the accused, the philosophy of judicial activism can be see can be noticed in Miranda v Arizona (1966). Miranda was arrested as a suspect in the kidnapping and rape of an 18-year-old girl. Although Miranda was questioned, he was not informed of his constitutional rights against self-incrimination or the right to counsel, and he in the end confessed to the crime. Prosecutors provided his confession as proof, and Miranda was located guilty. The case was brought to the Supreme Court, below Chief Justice Earl Warren, and presented the question of if interrogating people without the need of notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violates the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court decided in favor of Miranda, and they held that prosecutors cannon use statements from interrogations unless they demonstrated procedural safeguards, which have been later dubbed “Miranda rights.”

Likewise, with regard to civil rights, the philosophy of judicial activism can bee observed in the Heart of Atlanta Motel v United States (1964). The owner of the Heart of Atlanta Motel refused to rent rooms to black patrons, which was a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The owner sued on the grounds that the act surpassed the…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *