An introduction to the history of supreme court a court of judicial restraint and activism

Etymology[ edit ] Arthur Schlesinger Jr. An article by Craig Green, "An Intellectual History of Judicial Activism," is critical of Schlesinger's use of the term; "Schlesinger's original introduction of judicial activism was doubly blurred: For example, Thomas Jefferson referred to the "despotic behaviour" of Federalist federal judges, in particular Chief Justice John Marshall. You may improve this articlediscuss the issue on the talk pageor create a new articleas appropriate.

Kmiec Table of Contents I. Early History of the Term "Judicial Activism" In Search of the Earliest Use Arthur Schlesinger in Fortune Magazine Early Usage of "Judicial Activism" Early Scholarly Examination of Judicial Activism First Judicial Use of "Judicial Activism": Definitions of Judicial Activism Vertical versus Horizontal Precedent Constitutional versus Statutory versus Common Law Precedents.

Departures from Accepted Interpretive Methodology Most would agree that judicial activism is indeed slippery. But some scholars, [FN2] including at least one sitting Supreme Court Justice, [FN3] have suggested that in some contexts, it is not always a bad thing.

This is the problem: During the s, the terms "judicial activism" [FN4] and "judicial activist" appeared in an astounding 3, journal and law review articles. Ironically, as the term has become more commonplace, its meaning has become increasingly unclear.

This is so because "judicial activism" is defined in a number of disparate, even contradictory, ways; scholars and judges recognize this problem, yet persist in speaking about the concept without defining it.

Thus, the problem continues unabated: This Comment does not seek to attack or defend any particular notion of judicial activism, nor does it proffer an entirely new theory of the term.

Instead, it modestly assembles theories of judicial activism that have gained widespread acceptance, linking them to history, caselaw, and other scholarship.

Its purpose is to clarify the meaning of "judicial activism" when it is used in different contexts, so that those who use the term can communicate their ideas more effectively. To achieve this end, this Comment begins by exploring the neglected history of the concept of judicial activism.

Over half a century ago, a scholar wrote that he lived in "a day that hears much talk of judicial activism," [FN10] and thirty years ago, Judge Friendly wrote that he lived in the "days of judicial activism.

Judicial activism | Revolvy

Who was the first to use it? What did it mean initially? Which scholars and judges ushered it from obscurity to ubiquity?Judicial restraint can best be described as a type of conservative legal decision that is made solely according to the law and by legal precedent.

Legal precedent consists of prior court decisions. Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposing philosophies when it comes to the Supreme Court justices' interpretations of the United States Constitution; justices appointed by the President to the Supreme Court serve for life,and thus whose decisions shape .

Judicial Activism - Definition, Examples, Cases, Processes

The Selection of Supreme Court Justices and Federal Judges: Process & Tenure As opposed to the progressiveness of judicial activism, judicial restraint opines that the courts should uphold all. Judicial activism refers to judicial rulings that are suspected of being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law.

It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The definition of judicial activism and the specific decisions that are activist are controversial political issues. Arthur Schlesinger Jr. introduced the term "judicial activism" in a January Fortune magazine article titled "The Supreme Court: ".

[2] The phrase has been controversial since its beginning. An article by Craig Green, "An Intellectual History of Judicial Activism," is critical of Schlesinger's use of the term; "Schlesinger's original introduction .

The Supreme Court of India (Hindi: भारत का सर्वोच्च न्यायालय) is the highest judicial forum and final court of appeal of India established under Constitution of India, as per which Supreme Court is the highest constitutional court and acts as the guardian of Constitution.