Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Myth of Judicial Activism: Making Sense of Supreme Court Decisions (Yale University Press Publishers), 272pp. ISBN 0-300-11468-0; James B. Kelly, July 30, 2006. Governing With the Charter: Legislative And Judicial Activism And Framer's Intent (Law and Society Series) (UBC Press Publishers), 336pp. ISBN 0-7748-1212-5; Rory Leishman, May 2006.
This page was last edited on 28 September 2024, at 23:14 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
Judges may employ judicial activism to promote their own conception of the social good. The definition of judicial activism and whether a specific decisions is activist are controversial political issues. [40] The legal systems of different nations vary in the extent that judicial activism may be permitted.
The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937, [12] frequently called the "court-packing plan", [13] was a legislative initiative proposed by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court in order to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation that the Court had ruled unconstitutional. [14]
Courts in the United States and elsewhere have developed a number of principles for handling such evidence of legislative intent. For example, many courts have suggested that the comments of those opposing a bill under consideration should be treated with skepticism on the principle that opponents of a bill may often exaggerate its practical consequences.
The Lochner era was a period in American legal history from 1897 to 1937 in which the Supreme Court of the United States is said to have made it a common practice "to strike down economic regulations adopted by a State based on the Court's own notions of the most appropriate means for the State to implement its considered policies". [1]
Also called the Blue Dog Democrats or simply the Blue Dogs. A caucus in the United States House of Representatives comprising members of the Democratic Party who identify as centrists or conservatives and profess an independence from the leadership of both major parties. The caucus is the modern development of a more informal grouping of relatively conservative Democrats in U.S. Congress ...
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 (locus standi) and a reluctance to grant certiorari; [1] and a tendency ...