Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposing philosophies when it comes to the Supreme Court justices' interpretations of the United States Constitution; justices appointed by the President to the Supreme Court serve for life,and thus whose decisions shape the lives of "We the people" for a long time to come. Madison, one of the first Supreme Court cases asserting the power of judicial review, is an effective argument for this power; however, it lacks direct textual basis for the decision. John Marshall managed to get away with this deficiency because of the silence on many issues and the vague wording of the Constitution. Marshall was also the first to interpret the Constitution loosely, also known as judicial activism. During his term as Supreme Court Chief Justice, Marshall was also successful in loose constructionism through other landmark Supreme Court cases such as Gibbons v. Ogden ("Emancipation Proclamation" of commerce), and McCulloch v. Maryland (whose decision stated that the states cannot tax a federal bank). These landmark decisions were the basis and the precedent for future Supreme Court cases, and had also provided a means through which the Supreme Court can question the law and even possibly change different facets of life affecting the present and future of "We the people."Liberals and Democrats tend to favor judicial activism as it opens new doors to interpretation and experimentation. However, those that favor judicial restraint on the other hand, and thus favor the status quo and the strict construction of the Constitution are conservatives and Republicans. Two landmark Supreme Court decisions that strictly interpreted the Constitution for its literal meaning were Dred Scott v. Sanford and Plessy v. Ferguson. In the Dred Scott case, the Supreme Court ruled that African Americans did not have the right to sue for their freedom, since they were seen strictly by the law as property and not even cit...
