Judiciary’s Role, Judicial Restraint, and Judicial Activism

Name
Tutor
Course
Date
Governing Institutions
The United States has a well-structured legal and political system that determines the responsibilities of the different arms of government. The nation’s Constitution integrates diverse clauses outlining the separation of powers, streamlining the formulation of laws and their implementation and enforcement. The judiciary’s role is especially critical in determining the federal laws’ constitutionality and solving law or policy-related disputes. Some fundamental concepts emerging from the discourses about the judiciary and the changing landscape include judicial restraint and activism. According to Grover, these terms have attracted mixed reactions and misinterpretations in contemporary times (2). Thus, exploring the judiciary’s role through the activist and judicial restraint lens is critical for elucidating their meaning.
The roles of the judiciary are enshrined in the Constitution, which makes it an essential arm in the stability of a nation. Brooks described the judiciary as a court system tasked with the central responsibility for applying the nation’s laws, including the proper and informed interpretation and their protection from inappropriate enforcement. Such an approach is consistent with the argument that these institutions oversee and ensure the laws within the country remain constitutional in every form. Grover demonstrates such instances through the supreme court’s efforts to affirm the appropriateness of rulings in diverse cases, including the American Legion v. American Humanist Association (107). As a result, the judiciary protects the nation’s democracy by ensuring that other arms of the government respect the Constitution while executing their duties.
Upholding the constitutionality of laws in the United States translates to diverse outcomes that further clarify the judiciary’s role. For instance, by interpreting the regulations, the courts safeguard the rights of the people through the Constitution (Brooks). Such an aspect demonstrates why judges should remain non-political to ensure that they rely on constitutional to make their ruling, leading to impartial judgments. Other fundamental roles include settling case disputes, outlining whether a crime has occurred, and determining the appropriate punishment for such acts. The scrutiny of the law, its past application, and desirable ruling ensure that the courts maintain the concept of equal and equitable application of the law (Grover 4). Such occurrences lead to fairness in judgments, making the judiciary the custodian of justice.
The perception of courts has gradually changed with the changing times and societal needs. Recent claims have emerged that the power of these institutions has significantly grown because of their ability to overreach and execute duties beyond their interpretation of law and determination of its constitutionalism. Grover calls this aspect judicial activism and reveals that it has attracted divisive views from the public, the political class, and even judges (1). According to the author, activism is a contemporary concept that illustrates the courts’ initiatives to ensure the American Constitution remains consistent with ...