Supreme Court: Judicial Restraint or Activism?

The most powerful judicial body in the United States of America is forced to remain impartial, while also facing controversy in the thousands of cases that are brought before them each year. The balance between judicial restraint and judicial activism is outlined in the brief oral arguments that the nine justices hear, outlying the issues of a case that they have already thoroughly discussed and decided that it deserves a more in depth analysis. Although the justices are nominated by presidents and represent certain beliefs in reference to politics they are all required to remain impartial and reflect a popular sentiment of their fellow justices, while also sharing the same basic advantage, whether it be deciding to stand by past precedents or choosing to establish a new precedent that will effect thousands of Americans to come.

Being able to argue before such a prestigious "corporate group" with different ideas and backgrounds emphasizes the effects of the most powerful judicial body and the reality of "new justice, new portrait" that not only represents the incorporation of new beliefs and ideas, but allows for the Supreme Court to continuously represent what the United States Constitution stands for, in the sense that the people will continue to have a voice and will continue to be heard. The nine justices voting and one taking the most time-consuming portion of the decision, taking at least up to 4 weeks to draft the opinions that the public will analyze, demonstrates the continuation of our nation's court system and precedents.