The Importance of Judicial Independence and the Competing Approaches of Judicial Restraint and Judicial Activism in Supreme Court Decision-Making

ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS:

Required Materials and Resources:
Copy and paste the two links below, in order to watch the two videos needed to complete this assignment.
1. Marbury v. Madison Case :Marbury v. Madison Case :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLRO5iCWppshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLRO5iCWpps
2. Frontline Inside the Supreme Court Documentary:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?297213-1/the-supreme-court-home-americas-highest-court-2010-editionhttps://www.c-span.org/video/?297213-1/the-supreme-court-home-americas-highest-court-2010-edition
Analysis Objectives and Central Themes
Keeping in mind that the founding fathers gave little thought to the Federal Court’s power. This is evident in that compared to Article I (Congress/Legislative Branch) and Article II (President/Executive Branch), Article III of the constitution is the shortest in length. Recall, the framer’s purpose and function for establishing a federal court system. They were seeking to create an independent judiciary
Only during the ratification debates in the states did political writers more fully explore the Constitution’s definition of judicial independence. The most famous commentary came in The Federalist essays of Alexander Hamilton, who argued that “the complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution,” by which he meant a Constitution that placed limits on the authority of all government officeholders. The judiciary’s responsibility, according to Hamilton, was to enforce the people’s will as expressed in the Constitution and thus to prevent the abuse of power by the executive and especially the legislature. “Permanent tenure” was the most important foundation of the courts’ role as “bulwarks . . . against legislative encroachments.”
A prominent Anti-Federalist critic of the Constitution acknowledged the importance of judicial independence as secured by service during good behavior, but “Brutus” also recognized that the judicial independence envisioned by the Constitution was unprecedented. Judges would be removable only by impeachment and conviction of “high crimes and misdemeanors” rather than by a vote of the legislature, as was the case in most other governments with judicial tenure during good behavior. “Brutus” warned that regardless of errors of judgment or inability to carry out their duties, federal judges would be “independent of the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven.” He also worried that these largely unaccountable judges would have the final say on the meaning of the Constitution, but Hamilton and other framers of the proposed government thought that the courts’ responsibility to determine the constitutionality of laws, and thus to protect individual rights, was precisely the reason for the extraordinary protections of judicial independence. Hamilton dismissed concerns about unchecked judicial power, since the courts had “no influence over either the sword or the purse.”
Insightful Information:
Being a Supreme Court Justice has been called a “lifetime appointment,” (Links to an external site.) but Justices do not generally treat it as one. Case-in-point, of the 112 confirmed, less than half (50) have died in office. The majority have resigned or retired.
The average U.S. President gets to appoint just over two Supreme Court justices (i.e. 45 U.S. Presidents, 112 Justices confirmed so far).
Prompt Topics:
Papers should be argumentative, in favor or opposition of one position presented in the question. Papers must include at least 1 example from the film and 1 example from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, to offer support for their position.
There are two competing ways justices make decisions and interpret the constitution: judicial restraint or judicial activism. Explain the differences between these two approaches of interpreting the constitution and decision-making, and based on the personal interviews of each justice, given in the CSPAN video, provide an example of a justice whose decision-making behavior you would predict to model each of the two types of decision-making behaviors.

HOW TO WORK ON THIS ASSIGNMENT (EXAMPLE ESSAY / DRAFT)

In interpreting the Constitution and making decisions, Supreme Court Justices can either exercise judicial restraint or judicial activism. Judicial restraint refers to the belief that the Court should not actively interpret the Constitution and instead defer to the other branches of government, while judicial activism refers to the belief that the Court should actively interpret the Constitution and strike down laws that violate it.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor exemplifies the judicial activism approach. In the CSPAN video, she discusses her belief that the Court should use its power to protect marginalized communities and expand civil rights. She argues that the Constitution is a living document that must be interpreted in light of modern societal changes. For example, in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that the Court should have considered the discriminatory impact of the city’s decision to throw out the results of a promotion exam for firefighters.

On the other hand, Justice Clarence Thomas exemplifies the judicial restraint approach. In the CSPAN video, he emphasizes his belief in originalism, which is the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted based on its original meaning at the time of its drafting. Thomas argues that the Court should not use the Constitution to impose modern values or to create new rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. For example, in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, Thomas dissented from the majority opinion, arguing that the Court was overstepping its bounds by legalizing same-sex marriage.

Article III of the U.S. Constitution also supports the idea of judicial independence and the protection of individual rights. This is evidenced by the language in the Constitution that establishes the judiciary as a separate branch of government with the power to interpret the Constitution and declare laws unconstitutional. This power is essential for ensuring that the other branches of government do not overstep their constitutional authority and for protecting individual liberties.

In conclusion, the decision-making approach of Supreme Court Justices can be characterized as either judicial restraint or judicial activism. While Justice Sotomayor exemplifies the judicial activism approach, Justice Thomas exemplifies the judicial restraint approach. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses, and it is up to each Justice to decide which approach they believe best serves the Constitution and the American people. The Constitution itself supports the idea of judicial independence and the protection of individual rights, which is a central theme in the establishment of the federal court system.