The Reasons for Judicial Restraint
Judicial review is the power given to Supreme Court justices in which a judge has the power to reason whether a law is deemed unconstitutional according to the constitution. Chief justice John Marshall initiated the Supreme Court's right to translate the constitution in the famous case, which took place in 1803 Marbury Vs. Madison; moreover, he declared that the Supreme Court was the sole interpreters of Constitutional law. This happens to be the most imperative duty of the Supreme Court of the United States. The framers of the constitution had enough foresight to write an eloquent and everlasting doctrine in vague language, which gives discretion for the justices of the high court to protect the liberties of all citizens. Therefore, the concept of judicial review states that that individuals appointed by elected presidents can determine the constitutionality of laws and actions passed by the legislators and the people of the United States themselves.
The late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist was an avid believer in Judicial restraint. Rehnquist believed as well as many members of Congress believe that the only lawmaker's in the United states are the legislative, executive branches and more importantly the people; while the job of the judicial branch is to uphold and oversee the legal system, to act as a ruling body as a distributor of justice in accordance to precedent. Although, judicial review has been at times been viewed as being antidemocratic it is necessary to preserve the individual liberties and freedoms that we as Americans refuse to relinquish. In addition, the privilege of judicial review should be maintained by the justice's, however, it should be used to preserve established rights not grant new ones.
"Judicial review has basically antidemocratic and antimajoritarian facets that require some justification in...