of the court is preferred and that the other branches of the government should paved the way for policy and civil case changes. In the course of our history, cases, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson, are ample examples of judicial restraint.Prior to the Civil War, the Supreme Court was practicing judicial restraint. Any case regarding policy changes in civil opinions were restrained and given the ruling of stare decisis. Under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall, however, we observed that the Supreme Court began to participate in its interpretation of the Constitution and making its ruling the law of the land. I strongly believe that these changes have made our country a better nation, but is judicial activism necessary? In the case of Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court, in my opinion, acted without much regards to the consensus of to the popularity of Al Gore. The arguments for judicial activism are that it helps change civil policies promptly, but are these changes too hasty? Many people believe that judicial restraint hurts growth, both socially and economically. Changes or improvements towards the civil and criminal justice only come as a last minute change when so much damage has occurred to the precedent parties.Modern courts are not easily identified as active or restrictive. Former President, Ronald Regan, appointed William Rehnquist, the current chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, into his current position. Regan and the Republicans had hoped that with Rehnquist in office, the U.S. justice would be conservative in its decision, meaning restraint when it concerns laws that are Republican by nature, and active when cases brought into court are Democratic by nature. However, I believe the current court has been relatively restrained. The affirmation of the right to an abortion and allowing the burning of the American flag as a symbol of freedom of speech, in my opinion, are acts of judic...
