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 ...
Models of judicial decision making are developed by researchers and scholars to provide an explanation for the votes of United States Supreme Court Justices. With the Supreme Court holding such importance in the American legal and political system, researchers, scholars, and court-watchers have long tried to understand the motivations of its ...
Judicial interpretation is the way in which the judiciary construes the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary.This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review.
Largely associated with Cass R. Sunstein, it is a viewpoint which criticizes the more conservative stance of originalism as being judicial activism in disguise. Minimalists believe that a faithful application of originalist theory would result in a system of constitutional law in which modern societal standards would be ignored, in favor of the now-antiquated opinions held by the Founding ...
Principles of Islamic jurisprudence (Arabic: أصول الفقه, romanized: ʾUṣūl al-Fiqh) are traditional methodological principles used in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) for deriving the rulings of Islamic law ().
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".
As Professor Alexander Bickel points out, however, Atherton Mills was "a case of quite conventional mootness, hardly apt as an illustration of judicial self-restraint in constitutional litigation". [15] Mootness, a justiciability doctrine, serves to ensure that a controversy is "live" and in need of judicial resolution. [16]
Restraint means that you don't take an action; it doesn't mean that you take action to reverse another past action because you think that action ought to have been restrained. (Within reason, of course, if there was some outrageous decision that was unquestionably wrong, even one who strictly believed in restraint may still overturn it).