The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial activism versus judicial restraint, loose constructionism versus strict constructionism, and living document versus original intent. Some judges develop a philosophy of activism, using the bench to enact social and political change.

Advocates of judicial restraint argue that judges do not have the authority to act as policy makers. Among judicial restraint advocates are Thomas Jefferson, Learned Hand and Hugo Black. Opponents argue that activism is a necessity when the other branches of government do not act to bring about social change.

Judicial activism is the assertion (or, sometimes, the unjustified assertion) of the power of judicial review to set aside government acts. Judicial restraint is the refusal to strike down such acts, leaving the issue to ordinary politics.

What is judicial restraint? Term used to describe the philosophy of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power.

a philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow, mainly, their personal views about public policy to guide their decisions. Look to change precedent. Brown vs. Board of Education was activist in that it declared unconstitutional laws in many states requiring the segregation of the races in education.

What remedies are available in judicial review proceedings?

• mandatory orders require the body under review to do something;
• prohibitory orders restrain or prevent the body from doing something; and.
• quashing orders set aside the decision of a body on the basis that it is invalid32.

Judicial review refers to the power of a court to review a statute, treaty or administrative regulation for constitutionality or consistency with a a superior law. An attorney’s spoken statements and presentation before a court supporting or opposing the legal relief at issue.

Why is judicial review important? In the absence of a written constitution, it provides an important check and balance. This is upheld as judges check that bodies do not exceed discretionary powers given to them by Parliament.

By using its power of judicial review, the Court can, in effect, update the meaning of the words of the Constitution, most of which were written over two centuries ago. Hence, they will decide what the phrase in Amendment XIII (written in 1791) forbidding ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ means today.

According to the Constitution, punishment can be set by Congress and will extend beyond the offender’s life including his family. The court obtained the judicial review power from the Congress. Judicial review allows the Supreme Court to decide all final arbitrary questions regarding the US Constitution.

The judicial branch is in charge of deciding the meaning of laws, how to apply them to real situations, and whether a law breaks the rules of the Constitution. The Constitution is the highest law of our Nation. The U.S. Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, is part of the judicial branch.

The power to determine the constitutionality of laws and executive acts. The Judicial Branch can declare congressional laws unconstitutional.

The Judicial Branch

• Interpreting state laws;
• Settling legal disputes;
• Punishing violators of the law;
• Hearing civil cases;
• Protecting individual rights granted by the state constitution;
• Determing the guilt or innocence of those accused of violating the criminal laws of the state;