Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that recommends favoring the status quo in judicial activities and is the opposite of judicial activism.Aspects of judicial restraint include the principle of stare decisis (that new decisions should be consistent with previous decisions); a conservative approach to standing and a reluctance to grant certiorari; [1] and a tendency to deliver ...
Constitutional scholar John Hart Ely believed that "strict constructionism" is not really a philosophy of law or a theory of interpretation, but a coded label for judicial decisions popular with a particular political party. [3] The term is frequently used even more loosely to describe any conservative judge or legal analyst. [4]
Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy holding that courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of their decisions. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. [1] The term usually implies that judges make rulings based on their own views rather than on precedent. [2]
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a warning on Tuesday that the United States must maintain "judicial independence" just weeks away from President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration ...
In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest".
Judicial restraint is the idea that the Supreme Court should decide as few cases as possible and on the narrowest possible grounds in order to allow the democratic process to play out without judicial interference wherever possible. [18] Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Felix Frankfurter are often associated this approach. [18]
(The Center Square) – Cook County is at No. 6 on the Americans for Tort Reform Judicial Hellholes list. ATR has been publishing the annual Judicial Hellholes list for more than 20 years.
The avoidance doctrine flows from the canon of judicial restraint and is intertwined with the debate over the proper scope of federal judicial review and the allocation of power among the three branches of the federal government and the states. It is also premised on the "delicacy" and the "finality" of judicial review of legislation for ...