Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy holding that courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of their decisions. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint . [ 1 ]
Pages in category "Judicial activism" The following 11 pages are in this category, out of 11 total. This list may not reflect recent changes. ...
To further discern the justices' ideological leanings, researchers have carefully analyzed the judicial rulings of the Supreme Court—the votes and written opinions of the justices—as well as their upbringing, their political party affiliation, their speeches, their political contributions before appointment, editorials written about them at the time of their Senate confirmation, the ...
The third condition for judicial efficacy is the existence of a market that can implement the decision. The fourth condition hypothesizes that if there is both public and elite support, and support from administrators and those actors whose support is necessary for Court decisions to be implemented, then change can occur.
Judges may employ judicial activism to promote their own conception of the social good. The definition of judicial activism and whether a specific decisions is activist are controversial political issues. [39] The legal systems of different nations vary in the extent that judicial activism may be permitted.
However, those on both sides of the political aisle often level this accusation at the court. The debate around judicial activism typically involves accusing the other side of activism, whilst denying that your own side engages in it. [327] [328] Conservatives often cite the decision in Roe v. Wade (1973
In jurisprudence and legal philosophy, legal positivism is the theory that the existence of the law and its content depend on social facts, such as acts of legislation, judicial decisions, and customs, rather than on morality. This contrasts with natural law theory, which holds that law is necessarily connected to morality in such a way that ...
Alexander Bickel, a law professor at Yale Law School, coined the term counter-majoritarian difficulty in his 1962 book, The Least Dangerous Branch.He used the term to describe the argument that judicial review is illegitimate because it allows unelected judges to overrule the lawmaking of elected representatives and thus to undermine the will of the majority.