An Analysis of the American Judicial System

The judicial system has a very important role in our government. They are the almighty high court that has the highest ruling power when it comes to cases in the country. From this big judicial system two main divisions of the modern thought process prevail. These two are known as judicial activism and judicial restraint. Both have had a giant influence on Supreme Court decisions in last half of the twentieth century. 

Judicial Restraint is the first important doctrine that the Supreme Court deals with. The main basis is that the judiciary should have the utmost of respect for precedence and always look to the judgments that are associated with that of legislatures. Elected officials are the ones who make almost all decisions concerning public issues in cases instead of judges. Judges on the other hand are given the task of weighing out how much legislation and precedent are to be applied in certain cases instead of looking for new methods that alter contested laws. 

Two main points come to mind that allies of judicial restraint think highly of. Self-governing is put to the test when the judiciary takes on policy functions that typically would be in possession of elected institutions on the grounds that the policies are not taken care of by the institutions themselves. Restraint is also respected because it keeps essential public support intact for the legitimate long-term courts. Judicial compliance is essential in that the slightest insertion of personal law views can threaten public opinion with the judiciary. A rare occurrence in history of vital decisive judicial action was needed in the cast of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.