When the US Supreme Court interprets the US Constitution is it sometimes, in effect, making new laws? Is such “activism” on the part of the Supreme Court part of its job?
Answers
Answer:
It wouldn't be activism. Activism is the policy or action of using vigorous campaigning to bring about political or social change. They are not using campaigning. And it is not making new laws. It is interpreting existing laws. And that is their job.
Answer:
...
Explanation:
No, such “activism” is not part of the Supreme Court. As enumerated by the constitution in “The Massive Resistance” Khan Academy reading, the Supreme Court was established in order to function as an impartial judicial entity, but it is also merely determining the constitutionality of the pre-existing policy. So for that note, when the Supreme Court interprets the United States Constitution, there is no such “activism” on the part of their own half and their job description. It definitely would not be “activism”. The definition of “activism” in my opinion is mainly a policy by using a bunch of campaigns and action to bring about political and even social changes in the area. By this definition, I would not say that it is part of the Supreme Court.