Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint - Essay Example

It states that judges should vacillate to strike down laws unless they are apparently unconstitutional, though what is well-thought-out as unconstitutional is a matter of debate. Judicial restraint is the antonym of judicial activism (Ringhand & Collins, 2010). The role played by (judicial restraint versus judicial activism) debate during the Senate confirmation of Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia Sotomayor? The discussion between judiciary restraint and judicial activism started in the early days of the United States of America and has proceeded to the present.

A number of renowned Supreme Court justices such as John Marshall have supported the judicial activism view, the belief that it’s the role of the judges to chart new constitutional grounds as well as make bold policy decisions. Supporters of legal activists are to judicial restraint that supports that the judiciary should leave the policy formulation and decisions making process to the executive and legislative branches (Ringhand & Collins, 2010). For decades, Republican Party leaders have decried judicial activism and championed judicial restraint.

Republican politicians have associated judicial restraint with a commitment to judicial deference, stating that judges who support judicial activism disrespect the will of many people. The debate has continued to warrant close inspection as a result of the deployment of judicial activism by Republic politicians during the Supreme Court confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as well as in the 2008 presidential elections. The senators were utterly aghast that Sonia’s experience and background might affect her decisions and that she may be an activist.

The Sotomayor emphasized that justices make no laws and policies but merely apply those laws that are in existence (Davis, 2009). It is uncontroversial to indicate that only chief Justice Scalia and Justice Roberts Alito and Thomas belong to the number of judges who are in the political circles of Republicans. Justice Alito and Roberts were nominated by Bush and were considered Republican favourites. The two were however not democrat’s favourites, and President Obama was not ready to vote for the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts.

It turns out that the decision-making process or aspect of the Supreme Court is the extent to which judges can be grouped into some divisive block, just as revealed by judicial activism versus judicial restraint. It is impossible to discern just from voting behaviour whether a vote in support of the government signifies pure substantive agreement or just difference logic. Let’s assume that voting for the government indicates respect. The assumption can be since; Chief Justice Scalia, Robert, Alito, and Thomas are still not characterized accurately as practitioners of judicial deference (Davis, 2009).

The four conservative and the four liberal justices are into opinions and may vote precisely the way liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans will do in congress and the senate. Their confirmation was also influenced politically. It is true that judicial activism versus judicial restraint played a significant role in the approval of these judges.