judicial restraint

(noun)

a theory that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power

Related Terms

Examples of judicial restraint in the following topics:

  • Judicial Activism and Restraint

    • Judicial activism is based on personal/political considerations and judicial restraint encourages judges to limit their power.
    • Judicial activism describes judicial rulings suspected of being based on personal or political considerations rather than on existing law.
    • Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power.
    • Former Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter , a Democrat appointed by Franklin Roosevelt, is generally seen as the model of judicial restraint.
    • When Chief Justice Rehnquist overturned some of the precedents of the Warren Court, Time magazine said he was not following the theory of judicial restraint.

  • The Brown Decision

    • While all but one justice personally rejected segregation, the judicial restraint faction questioned whether the Constitution gave the Court the power to order its end.

  • The Warren Court

    • The Warren Court (1953-1969), or the Supreme Court of the United States during the period when Earl Warren served as Chief Justice, declared a number of critical cases that expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and the federal power in dramatic ways.
    • Warren led a liberal majority that used judicial power in dramatic fashion, to the consternation of conservative opponents.
    • The Warren Court expanded civil rights, civil liberties, judicial power, and federal power .
    • The period is recognized as a high point in judicial power that has receded ever since, but with a substantial continuing impact.
    • Jackson led one faction, which insisted upon judicial self-restraint and insisted courts should defer to the policy making prerogatives of the White House and Congress.

  • The Supreme Court as Policy Makers

    • The Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review but the power to overturn laws and executive actions.
    • The Constitution does not explicitly grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review but the power of the Court to overturn laws and executive actions it deems unlawful or unconstitutional is well-established.
    • Many of the Founding Fathers accepted the notion of judicial review.
    • The Supreme Court is not immune from political and institutional restraints: lower federal courts and state courts sometimes resist doctrinal innovations, as do law enforcement officials.
    • On the other hand, through its power of judicial review, the Supreme Court has defined the scope and nature of the powers and separation between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

  • Judicial Federalism

    • Judicial federalism is a theory that the judicial branch has a place in the check and balance system in U.S. federalism.
    • Much of judicial federalism is dependent on judicial review as well as other acts defining the judiciary's role in the U.S. government.
    • The Judiciary Act thereby incorporated the concept of judicial review.
    • Judicial review is now a well settled doctrine.
    • Madison changed the role of the judicial branch in the federal system.

  • The Power of Judicial Review

    • Judicial review is the doctrine where legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary.
    • Judicial review is the doctrine under which legislative and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary.
    • Specific courts with judicial review power must annul the acts of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher authority.
    • Judicial review is an example of the separation of powers in a modern governmental system.
    • Explain the significance of judicial review in the history of the Supreme Court

  • Constitutional Limits

    • The Supreme Court has developed a system of doctrine and practice that self-limits is power of judicial review.

  • Informal Methods of Amending the Constitution: Societal Change and Judicial Review

    • Informal amendments mean that the Constitution does not specifically list these processes as forms of amending the Constitution, but because of change in society or judicial review changed the rule of law de facto.
    • This type of change occurs in two major forms: through circumstantial change and through judicial review.
    • In American legal language, "judicial review" refers primarily to the adjudication of constitutionality of statutes, especially by the Supreme Court of the United States.
    • Describe the ways of "informally" amending the Constitution, such as societal change and judicial review.

  • Marbury v. Madison

    • The landmark Supreme Court case,, firmly established the basis for the exercise of judicial review.
    • Supreme Court decision in which the Court established the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution.
    • The landmark decision helped define the power of the judiciary as a co-equal branch of the government, constitutionally separate from the executive and judicial branches.
    • Madison, refers to the establishment of the principle of judicial review.
    • Madison created between the executive and judicial branches of government

  • Judicial Review and Marbury v. Madison

    • Madison (1803) was a landmark case that laid the foundation for the exercise of judicial review in the United States.
    • Madison (1803) is a landmark case in U.S. law that laid the foundation for the exercise of judicial review under Article III of the Constitution.
    • Its outcome helped define the boundary between the American government's constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches.
    • Many legal scholars argue that the power of judicial review in the United States predated Marbury v.
    • Madison and the ensuing principle of judicial review