Although judges do not run on a platform, as do elected officials, they
nevertheless hold political beliefs that influence their decisions. People strongly
debate the role of the courts in politics and the role that personal beliefs and
political philosophy should play.
Judicial Philosophy
Judicial philosophy is the way in which a judge understands
and interprets the law. Laws are universal, but they must be applied to
particular cases with unique circumstances. To do this, judges interpret the
law, determining its meaning and sometimes the intent of those who wrote
it.
The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial
activism versus judicial restraint, loose constructionism versus strict
constructionism, and living document versus original intent.
Some judges develop a philosophy of activism, using the bench to enact
social and political change. Other judges practice a philosophy of restraint,
believing that judges must interpret the law strictly rather than seek to make
new laws. And all judges, regardless of their philosophies, develop their own
methods of reading the Constitution. Some judicial philosophies tend to coincide
with certain political views. Most strict constructionists, for example, are
also advocates of judicial restraint, but not all. Similarly, many advocates of
judicial restraint also follow the doctrine of original intent. These views,
however, do not always overlap. As a result, judicial philosophies are not the
same as political ideologies.
We explore these philosophies in more detail in the following
tables.
JUDICIAL ACTIVISM VERSUS JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
|
Judicial Activism
|
Judicial Restraint
|
|
Beliefs
| Courts should overturn bad laws and create new policies | Courts must interpret the law, not legislate new
policies |
|
Example
| Warren Court (1953–1969) | Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) |
|
Key Decisions
| Advanced civil rights and the rights of the
accused | Limits on expansion of federal power |
|
Politics
| Tend to be liberal | Tend to be conservative |
LOOSE CONSTRUCTIONISM VERSUS STRICT
CONSTRUCTIONISM
|
Loose Constructionism
|
Strict Constructionism
|
|
Beliefs
| Courts should read the Constitution expansively and
should not limit themselves to what is explicitly
stated | Courts should not reinterpret the
Constitution |
|
Example
| Warren Court (1953–1969) | Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) |
|
Key Decisions
| Exclusionary rule, right to a government-funded attorney
for the poor | Restrictions on abortion, eliminating federal rules for
state governments |
|
Politics
| Tend to be liberal | Tend to be conservative |
LIVING DOCUMENT VERSUS ORIGINAL INTENT
|
Living Document
|
Original Intent
|
|
Beliefs
| The Constitution must grow and adapt to new
circumstances. | Courts should interpret the Constitution as the framers
intended. |
|
Example
| Warren Court (1953–1969) | Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) |
|
Key Decisions
| Expansion of use of interstate commerce
clause | Restrictions on privacy rights |
|
Politics
| Tend to be liberal | Tend to be conservative |
Checks on the Courts
The legislative and executive branches check the power of the judiciary
branch in several ways. The main way of limiting the courts’ power lies with
judicial implementation, the process by which a court’s
decision is enforced. The executive branch must enforce court decisions, but if
the president or governor disagrees with a ruling, he or she sometimes ignores
it or only partially enforces it. Legislatures can also limit the courts through
the power of the purse. If Congress refuses to appropriate funds for
implementing a Supreme Court decision, that decision will not be enforced.
Congress and state legislatures also have the power to amend the Constitution,
which they can do to counter a court ruling.
