The American Judiciary (Research Paper Sample)

The American Judiciary
Student name and ID
Course code and title
Institution
Professor
Submission date
Introduction
A nation’s governance cannot be wise and possible if a good judicial system is not in place (Harr et al., 2017). Therefore, the United States, just as any state, has courts conferred with the powers to undertake judicial duties such as interpretation and application of the law on cases for purposes of promoting public welfare. The vitality of the judiciary is evident across the US as the citizens cherish liberty and respect the law of the land as well as the always-constant efforts to improve the system to become significantly useful (Harr et al., 2017). This paper therefore looks into the American Judiciary in view of the concepts of judicial activism and restraint, and describing the appropriate lens for examining the constitution by the judges.
Judicial Activism and Restraint
Judicial activism concept largely refers as the polar opposite of judicial restraint when applied in the description of philosophy and motivation of some underlying decisions made by the judiciary (Naik, 2017). At the basic level of the judiciary and law application, judicial activism refers to as the judgment theory that considers the spirit of the law as well as the varying times thus encouraging pragmatic wisdom. On the other hand judicial restraint is a referred to as a theory judgment which heavily rely on strict law interpretation and its vitality to the preceding legals, which encourages creativity for the good interpretation and application of the constitution (Naik, 2017).
One of the basic concept between these two facets is the freedom or restriction of the powers within disposal for the judicial system judges (Salman, 2017). This is clearly seen that judicial restraint theory encourages limiting of the exercising of power by the judges as they cannot strike down the law unless obviously constitutional since they have to uphold the precedent rulings and decisions. On the judicial activism, the judges are given a wider scope of constitution interpretation and application, which gives them the freedom to explore the law in search of its spirit (Salman, 2017). Therefore, prior histories and philosophies hold a dear position in judicial restraint as compared to judicial activism, which is largely liberal.
Judicial activism and restraint is also a concept that gives the interrelation between the State’s judiciary and the other branches of the government wether elected or appointed (Salman, 2017). Since judicial activism has the freedom of power exercising within the limits of the constitution’s spirit, its disposition in interpreting the rights of government departments and the broad vigorous enforcement of the law on such departments makes the daily practice of living the constitution. On the other hand, judicial restraint seeks to find room in the constitution where it can hold other democratically elected or appointed government departments accountable for whichever decision that they make (Salman, 2017). The legislature and the executive therefore have no limitation on the judicial activism as compared to the judicial restraint where they can easily have a loophole when the constitution cannot evidently hold them accountable for their decisions.
The concept brought about by judicial activism and restraint is also about the centralization or dispersion of the proponents of the law. While judicial activism deals with highly dispersed proponents, judicial restraint is greatly central to the constitution giving no room to exercise of other powers in practice of the spirit of the constitution (Naik, 2017). Therefore, the dispersion and centralization of the powers matters in a detailed designation of the judicial review for the better of the system. This is where strong form and weak-form systems of judicial administration are determined. When the judicial system has law proponents dispersed with great judicial activism, the system is said