Since the commencement of the Constitution in America, there have been two schools of thought in the Supreme Court. They pertain firstly to the invocation of judicial restraint as a court policy which implies that greater power and autonomy is given to lower courts and political bodies in taking decisions. This view is considered to be conventionally conservative in that it permits states to have greater authority.
The second school of thought pertains to judicial activism as being the policy of the court and is considered to be more liberal. Judicial activism entails the usage by the court of an intervention mechanism in regard to the decisions taken by makers of policies by way of precedents in case laws. The two judicial policies have led to intense debates in judicial circles in regard to how cases ought to be decided. It is observed from different case laws that the Supreme Court has mainly been an activist court and attempts to correct errors in the law by way of its own decisions and line of action. The Supreme Court has adopted the policy of using judicial activism in more cases as compared to cases that are dealt with in using judicial restraint.
Several factors need to be considered in ascertaining as to why the court uses judicial activism as compared to judicial restraint in majority of the cases. Firstly, the court is certainly an activist entity in spite of the conservative nature of its operations. Although the court is characterized with an ideological make up, there appears to be ample stimulus in making statements by using precedents in regard to the decisions of the court. Conservative court and sporadic restraint decisions under the pretext of restraints and regard for local and state power are mostly supposed to be activist in character. Activism is not considered to be a tool for liberal disposal of cases and is more of a political tool which is utilized by conservative constituents in subduing liberal amendments and maintaining the status quo. Activism does not have any limitations and can be used very flexibly by the court to arrive at concrete conclusions.
In view of the fact that the Supreme Court commands high levels of power and authority, it should as far as possibly assume the activist role since there are lot of possibilities for it to act as a role model for social change and progress. This role of the Court warrants that the American public encourage the court to take up cases not only as case laws but as social precedents. This is very much possible if the public became more anxious in making the court to adopt such a status.
The court is granted certain limitations and powers by the Constitution, but there is no restriction on the Supreme Court to use its discretion in providing for varied groups and interests to form a basis for providing a means that leads towards equality. The Supreme cannot be ignorant of the prevailing changes and trends in politics nor is it expected to act in this way. I am in support of the judicially active course which is a stronger and more effective check on the activities of a court that may otherwise just sit over and permit others to do the work.