Languaging – Blog

Where Law and Linguistics Come Together

Balancing Act: Navigating the Debate Between Judicial Restraint and Activism in Constitutional Language Interpretation

Just recently I have been learning and reading up about the differences between judicial restraint and judicial activism. This is a debate that stems purely from a linguistic point of view and impacts the way all Supreme Court rulings are dealt with today.

In case you are not familiar, judicial restraint is the point of view that supports making laws and decisions based on the literal meaning of the Constitution of 1787. On the other hand, judicial restraint means adopting the words of our founding fathers; in today’s day and age, where we have access to a lot more information and are under much different circumstances that the time after the civil war.

The debate over whether to interpret the Constitution more literally or adapt it to the contemporary context is a fundamental issue that continues to shape the legal landscape of the United States. This tension between strict constructionism and adaptability has profound implications, and it has been prominently featured in numerous landmark Supreme Court cases. Obergefell v. Hodges, in particular, underscores the magnitude of this divide among justices.

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the clash between those advocating for judicial restraint and those supporting judicial activism came to the forefront. On one side, proponents of judicial restraint argue for a more conservative and literal interpretation of the Constitution, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the original intent of the framers. They contend that marriage should be limited to the traditional understanding of a union between a man and a woman, rooted in historical precedent.

On the other side of the spectrum, advocates of judicial activism assert that the Constitution should evolve to encompass the changing social and moral values of society. They argue that under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, all individuals, regardless of their gender or sexual orientation, have a fundamental right to marry. This perspective emphasizes the Constitution’s adaptability to the evolving needs and values of a modern society.

This case served as a pivotal moment in the judicial restraint versus activism debate. By siding with marriage equality, and allowing for the marriage of same-sex couples, it marked a significant shift towards a more progressive interpretation of the Constitution, aligning it with contemporary understandings of civil rights and individual liberties. the funny thing is that it centered around the language of the constitution itself. Language is the key to many things.

Citations

dmonroigprats

Leave a comment