How the Supreme Court Influences Civil Rights
Judicial activism expands rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution
Judicial activism is a buzzword that many conservatives denounce and many liberals cherish. Throughout the history of the Supreme Court, justices have displayed either activism or restraint. This can be dependent on the public opinion of the nation or the justices’ personal ideologies.
The Warren Court is often touted as a highly activist era. While Earl Warren served as Chief Justice, the Court extensively expanded civil rights. For example, prior to the Warren Court, defendants had few rights. Although the Sixth Amendment gives defendants in criminal cases the right to a speedy trial with an impartial jury and the right to counsel, there are more rights afforded to defendants today than those articulated in the amendment. Miranda warnings and counsel for indigent defendants stemmed from judicial activism.
The Constitution does not say that Americans are entitled to privacy or that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death, yet the Court has created these rights. Justices choose cases, learn the facts, and apply the Constitution to those situations. Although the opinions apply specifically to the case at hand, the results apply to the nation as a whole. For example, Brown v. Board of Education dealt with a young girl, Linda Brown, not being able to attend an all-white school and ended with the desegregating schools on a national scale. The Court makes the decision and the other two branches enforce the ruling.
The justices have various approaches to interpreting the Constitution. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female Supreme Court justice, was criticized for her judicial activism on hot button issues. For example, when the Court decided the case Planned Parenthood v. Casey which argued to overturn Roe v. Wade, the case that had legalized abortions, O’Connor explained that the trimester framework should be replaced with the “undue burden” standard. This was considered activism, as she created a completely new standard that was not based on anything in the Constitution or any past precedent. On abortions and many other difficult topics, O’Connor’s experiences of being a women and mother shaped her understanding of how the Constitution applies to real life situations, instead of applying the document in a rigid way that is not conducive to the ever-evolving nation.
Textualists and originalists, such as the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Samuel Alito, prefer to decide cases based on the words specifically written in the Constitution and based on the Founding Fathers’ intent. These justices fall right of center and push for conservative ideals, warning of the dangers regarding activism of the Court.
There are both positive and negative consequences regarding judicial activism. The question remains: Is it fair for justices who hold lifetime appointments and are not elected to the nation’s highest court to use their discretion to expand rights, rather than abiding strictly to the text of the Constitution?
