Block, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, edit, move, protect, rollback
9,147
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + + + − +
History
Judicial activism can occasionally have a positive impact, although this impact can typically be better achieved by other methods. Many have cited [[Bolling v. Sharpe]], the companion case to [[Brown v. Board of Education]], which desegrated schools in [[Washington, D.C.]] as an example. The [[Equal Protection Clause]], which was cited in Brown, does not apply to the District of Columbia, only to the States. However, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that segregated schools in the city were still unconstitutional because it was also a violation of the [[due process]] clause of the Fifth Amendment. Although the impact was clearly desirable, the due process clause typically only applies to legal processes such as criminal trials, not to segregation. Also, the same result could have been achieved simply by an act of Congress, since they have control over the District's school system. Legal scholars Cass Sunstein and Randy Barnett agreed in a debate that it was hard to reconcile the ruling with the Constitution, in spite of its positive impact.<ref>[http://legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_cie0505.msp]</ref> These rare cases are therefore among the hardest for the Supreme Court to decide.
Judicial activism can occasionally have a positive impact, although this impact can typically be better achieved by other methods. Many have cited [[Bolling v. Sharpe]], the companion case to [[Brown v. Board of Education]], which desegrated schools in [[Washington, D.C.]] as an example. The [[Equal Protection Clause]], which was cited in Brown, does not apply to the District of Columbia, only to the States. However, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that segregated schools in the city were still unconstitutional because it was also a violation of the [[due process]] clause of the Fifth Amendment. Although the impact was clearly desirable, the due process clause typically only applies to legal processes such as criminal trials, not to segregation. Also, the same result could have been achieved simply by an act of Congress, since they have control over the District's school system. Legal scholars Cass Sunstein and Randy Barnett agreed in a debate that it was hard to reconcile the ruling with the Constitution, in spite of its positive impact.<ref>[http://legalaffairs.org/webexclusive/debateclub_cie0505.msp]</ref> These rare cases are therefore among the hardest for the Supreme Court to decide.
==History==
The phrase '''Judicial activism''' was coined by [[Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.]] in an article he wrote for ''Fortune'' Magazine titled ''The Supreme Court: 1947''.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=XoO1BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA165 Legal Innovations in Asia: Judicial Lawmaking and the Influence of Comparative Law]</ref>
==Examples==
==Examples==
*[[Griswold v. Connecticut]] - 1965 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to posess, distribute and use [[contraception]].
*[[Griswold v. Connecticut]] - 1965 Supreme Court ruling establishing a constitutional right to possess, distribute and use [[contraception]].
*[[Roe v. Wade]] - 1973 Supreme Court ruling claiming a constitutional "right" to [[abortion]].
*[[Roe v. Wade]] - 1973 Supreme Court ruling claiming a constitutional "right" to [[abortion]].
*[[Lawrence v. Texas]] - 2003 Supreme Court ruling claiming a constitutional "right" to [[sodomy]].
*[[Lawrence v. Texas]] - 2003 Supreme Court ruling claiming a constitutional "right" to [[sodomy]].