Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

The role of the Supreme Court in American government remains controversial, and has been especially so since the 1950s, when the Court began to expand and defend the rights of American citizens. The "right to privacy," rights of the accused, and right to obtain an abortion proved especially controversial, as did the Court's 1962 ruling in Engel v. Vitale, which declared organized prayer in public schools unconstitutional.

In response to some of the Court's rulings in recent decades, some Americans have advocated "judicial restraint," "strict construction" of the Constitution, or even "original intent jurisprudence." Judicial restraint means that judges should not abuse their power to further their own personal views, but should decide cases on the facts and the legal issues. Strict construction means that judges should be very restrained when interpreting the Constitution, and should try as much as possible to follow the letter of the law. Original intent means that judges and justices of the Supreme Court should follow the intent of the Framers of the Constitution when they wrote it in 1787. Conservative Americans, especially, often complain about what they call "judicial activism," or judges "legislating from the bench" by writing the law instead of interpreting it. They generally argue that judges should defer to the will of legislators as much as possible, and that the federal government should not intrude excessively in matters best left to state legislatures.