The document discusses ongoing debates about the role of the judiciary, including concepts of judicial activism and restraint. It highlights the tension between different ideological perspectives on judicial power and the right to privacy as a contentious legal topic. The document invites reflection on the existence of a constitutional right to privacy and its historical context.

1. · Debates continue regarding what constitutes an appropriate
role for the judiciary. Some argue that federal judges have
become too powerful and that judges “legislate from the
bench.”
1. What does it mean for a judge to be an activist?
2. What does it mean for a judge to be a restrainist?
· Although conservatives had long complained about the
activism of liberal justices and judges, in recent years
conservative judges and justices have been likely to overturn
precedents and question the power of elected institutions of
government.
3. When is judicial activism appropriate? Explain.
· To defenders of the right to privacy, it is implicitly embodied
in the Constitution in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and
Fourteenth Amendments. To opponents, it is judge-made law
because there is no explicit reference to it under the
Constitution. The right to privacy dates back to at least 1890,
when Boston attorneys Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis
equated it with the right to be left alone from journalists who
engaged in yellow journalism.
4. In short, do you believe a right to privacy exists in the
federal Constitution. Why or why not?