History, 27.09.2019 17:30 adamm16

The supreme court is most likely to be accused of judicial activism in cases involving?
voting rights
the seventh amendment
protection of individual rights
executive privilege

Answers: 1

Show answers

Answers

Answer from: omar5457

The Supreme Court is most likely to be accused of judicial activism in cases involving: protection of individual rights.

Writing for the conservative group, The Heritage Foundation, Elizabeth Slattery defines judicial activism as "when judges fail to apply the Constitution or laws impartially according to their original public meaning, regardless of the outcome, or do not follow binding precedent of a higher court and instead decide the case based on personal preference."

Cases involving individual rights are likely to elicit charges of judicial activism because the Constitution does not spell out each and every sort of right citizens may have. New questions come up that were not considered or specified at the time the Constitution was written. For instance, Roe v. Wade (1973) addressed the question of abortion and an individual's right to privacy. Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) addressed the legality of same-sex marriage. Both are cases of individual rights, where the Constitution did not give direct instruction on the issues at stake. The decisions on those issues, to allow abortion and to allow same-sex marriage, both are criticized by conservatives as instances of judicial activism.

Answer from: nhu78

The correct answer is C) protection of individual rights.

The Supreme Court is most likely to be accused of judicial activism in cases involving the protection of individual rights.

Throughout the history of the Supreme Court and a large number of cases it reviews on a yearly basis, the ones that refer to the protection of individual rights have caused controversy because many people have accused the Court of judicial activism.

There is a long list of these cases such as Plessy v. Ferguson of 1896, Dred Scott v. Sandford of 1857, Morgan v. Virginia of 1946, Hernández v. Texas of 1854, or Regents of the University of California v. Bakke of 1978, among many others.

Answer from: Quest

d the wampanoag the pilgrims because the pilgrims protected them from their native americans foes.

Answer from: Quest

depends on the age of the teen, many believe by the age of 16 a person should know the strong difference between right and wrong along with the difference between risky and immediate death. swimming with sharks might be dangerous but swimming with sharks while bloody meat is attached to you is just insane. even more if you have no idea what you're doing. however, no matter the age, as long as the person is skilled enough and has the mental and physical capacity to control their actions doing whatever sport they put their mind to is all that matters.

Another question on History

History, 22.06.2019 05:20

Unique among the rulers of this time, persian emperors installed governors in their provinces tolerated local cultures and laws wielded absolute power maintained an extensive army

Answers: 3

Answer

History, 22.06.2019 08:30

When was the versailles treaty signed

Answers: 2

Answer

History, 22.06.2019 10:00

Which of the following explains why scarcity is a basic fact of life a. demand will always be greater than supply b. technology has not advanced far enough yet c. there will always be too many people on earth d. people cannot make good allocation decisions

Answers: 2

Answer

History, 22.06.2019 13:00

What was one noteworthy aspect of the white colony? it was the first english colony in north america. the first child of english settlers was born there. it was one of the most successful colonies in history. it established interaction with the area’s american indians.

Answers: 1

Answer

You know the right answer?

The supreme court is most likely to be accused of judicial activism in cases involving?
votin...

Questions