ETVT that SCOTUS has become more activist in recent years (30)

Question 1

What is judicial activism and restraint?

Answer 1

Judicial activism takes place when the court sees itself as equal to other branches and aims to make changes in society. However Judicial restraint is the view that the court is more incline to accept the views and actions of elected officials and are more hesitant to strike down laws that are not obviously unconstitutional.

Question 2

Individual rights - They are activist

Answer 2

Obergefell v Hodges 2015, essentially created a new policy as it legalised same sex marriage in all 50 states and required them to recognise and perform same sex marriage, Due process clause and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. No explicit mention of right to same sex marriage, so activist.

Lawrence v Texas 2003, removed Texas sodomy law and making it legal for gay couples to engage in sexual conduct without intervention from the state.

Citizens united v federal election commission 2010, overturned the bipartisan campaign reform act 2002, because of the first amendment rights of the people.

DC v Heller 2008, extended the provisions of the second amendment to include the individuals’ rights to bear arms for reasons unconnected to service in a ‘militia’, overruled several provisions of the district of Colombia code.

Question 3

Individual rights - They arent activist

Answer 3

The courts continuous defence of the 8th amendment and execution/death penalty shows it has been restraint. They argued that it was the responsibility of the prisoners not the state to demonstrate that execution contravenes the 8th amendment by constituting cruel and unusual punishment.

Buckwell v Precythe 2019 for example followed recent precedents and ruled that the prisoner should be executed.

Glossip v Gloss 2015 allowed the continued use of the lethal injection.