1. • The presence of a written constitution and a
bill of rights, the separation of powers, and
the federalist system means the US Supreme
Court will have a much more important role
to play in politics than its UK counterpart.
• This role, however, is subject to change and
interpretation…

2. Judicial Philosophy
• Strict Constructionists will
stick close to the letter of
the Constitution and not
depart there from.
• Loose Constructionists will
attempt to read into the
Constitution and seek to
find areas which are
relevant to the case in hand

3. Judicial
• A passive court is one generally reluctant to take
on a lot of cases and will be inclined to let
controversial cases be resolved by Congress and
the White House. Four judges need to vote in
favour of the court taking a case before it is
considered.
• Adheres to “strict constrcutionism”
• In 2001 the Rehnquist Court declined to hear a
case about partial birth abortions.
• It has been said that Rehnquist Court in recent
years showed passive traits with its small docket
and lack of landmark rulings.
• “The least dangerous branch of government” -
Hamilton

4. Judicial
 Will be prepared to take on a lot of cases, and to enter
areas which it has traditionally shied away from and to
make landmark rulings.
 Adheres to ‘loose constructionism’
 Court can be active in a conservative direction (strengthen
police v criminals, favour schools prayers, prohibit gun
control, anti flag burning, restrict government intervention)
or a liberal direction (the opposite).

5. activism
Warren Court (1953-69) with its rulings on
 Brown v Board of Education (‘54)
 Mapp v Ohio (‘61)
 Gideon v Wainwright (‘63)
 Griswald v Connecticut (‘65)
 Miranda v Arizona (’66)
expanded civil rights, liberties, judicial power and
federal government power
(over the states).

6. activism
In its early years, the Rehnquist
Court (1986-2005), was regarded
as a conservative institution.
 McCleskey v Kemp (‘87)
 California v Greenwood (’88)
 Harmelin v Michigan (‘91)
 Planned Parenthood v Casey (‘92)
And don’t forget
Bush v Gore
(2000)…

7. Judicial Philosophy?
• Some commentators argue that these periods of
activism can represent a ‘judicial philosophy’, a
way in which the supreme court views the
constitution and their role in interpreting it.
• A supreme court with a ‘liberal philosophy’ would
be likely to see the constitution as a living
document which is open to modernisation and
interpretation.
• A supreme court with a ‘conservative philosophy’
would be likely to view the constitution as a clearly
defined document not open to new evaluation and
analysis.