SUPREME COURT: Should judges practice judicial activism or restraint?

First of all, let's clarify the meaning of judicial activism and restraint

Judicial activism is characterised by striking down laws as unconstitutional and overturning precedents, often to protect civil rights liberties. Judges who practice this are often liberal. They tend to uphold loose constructionism, which means they interpret the Constitution based on the values of our modern society

Whereas, judicially restrained Justices tend to abide by precedent (stare decisis*). They are unwilling to make radical rulings and would rather leave this to the elected legislature. They tend to be conservative and believe in strict constructionism (interpreting the Constitution word for word)

*This is the Latin term for standing by precedent. If you're looking to get an A or A*, try to use terms like this in your answers.

Ok, now we can answer the question.

In your introduction, make sure you explicitly mention all the key terms. Briefly define judicial activism and restraint, then explain the debate surrounding this issue. Why do some support activism? Why do others oppose it? Explain these concisely, then straight to your first point.

Tables are useful for two sided questions

JUDICIAL RESTRAINT	JUDICIAL ACTIVISM
Judicial restraint encourages predictable rulings, which safeguards the authority of the Court	Judicial activism encourages the protection of civil liberties e.g. Brown v Board , Roe v Wade, Hollingsworth v Perry, 2015 NSA ruling protects civil liberties by preventing collection of private data. Founding Fathers were concerned about the tyranny of the majority so the Supreme Court should stand up for minorities HOWEVER, Arguably, the Roberts Court has mostly protected civil liberties of the rich by overturning campaign finance laws e.g. Citizens United v FEC 2010 McCutcheon v FEC 2014
Judicial activism hampers neutrality. Makes the Court too political. Consider the increasing number of 5-4 decisions in Roberts Court	The Supreme Court itself is not infallible. it does set bad precedents that need to be changed eg Plessy v Ferguson
	Other branches of government do overstep their powers And it would be wrong for the Supreme Court to simply ignore this. weaken the separation of powers
Supreme Court should defer to other branches as they have greater mandate through elections as they are unelected an lack accountability	The Supreme Court is not elected. So, it is less susceptible to public opinion than Congress and is often more willing to implement huge social change. Such cannot be left to Congress, particularly with increasing partisanship + gridlock

Conclusion; Choose the side you agree with and say why. Ensure the conclusion is at least one paragraph