https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x Using the information you found in the previous class about your two supreme court cases, add whether the case was an example of Judicial Restraint or Activism en-us 2021-11-22 15:20:12 UTC 2021-11-22 15:57:33 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906429324 In Bush V Gore the Supreme Court exercised Judicial restraint because they did not want to create any precedents regarding a state supreme court’s power over elections.]]> 2021-11-22 15:46:38 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906429324 rmoore163 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906431828 In 1961, citizens of Tennessee, led by Baker, alleged that the Tennessee general assembly was unfairly proportioned, and that rural districts were overrepresented, and they petitioned the Supreme Court to fix this]]> 2021-11-22 15:47:46 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906431828 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906431859 Heller didn’t think he should have to have a permit for his gun because of the right to bear arms so it got brought to the surrender court and they ruled that in DOC he doesn’t need a permit because he has the right to possess firearms. This was judicial activism because they extended the right of baring arms to people]]> 2021-11-22 15:47:47 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906431859 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906434313 Judicial restraint because they didn’t want to set any precedent and thought the power is not theirs.]]> 2021-11-22 15:48:50 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906434313 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906437150 The recounting of the ballots was decided to go against the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment]]> 2021-11-22 15:50:07 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906437150 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906437314 2021-11-22 15:50:11 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906437314 rmoore163 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906437444 The court decided that since the constitution follows the principle of "one man, one vote," the general assembly had to be redistricted, since it gave rural voters more say then urban ones]]> 2021-11-22 15:50:15 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906437444 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906438693 The court ruled that the Forest Service could continue the construction of the road in question as it did not actually impede upon the Native Americans' right to worship. Nor did it prohibit the free exercise of their religion. Additionally, the court explained that the government would not be able to act in any capacity if it "were required to satisfy every citizen's religious needs and desires." This is an example of judicial activism as the majority opinion does not rest upon precedents. Furthermore, the court did not limit their powers or question their jurisdiction over the case as is often the case within cases of judicial restraint. ]]> 2021-11-22 15:50:49 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906438693 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906439486 Bush v Gore was a case about the presidential election. The problem brought to the Supreme Court was that the Florida Supreme Court made a new voting law about election recalls. They claimed that the new voting rule went against the US constitution. 
The outcome of the case was that the Florida Supreme Court made an unconstitutional law. This is restraint because they changed the ruling of a lower court and kept the same precedent for voting laws.]]> 2021-11-22 15:51:09 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906439486 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906443499 In Lyng V N.I.C.P.A. the supreme court exercised Judicial Restraint in the ruling of the case, because they did not want to create a precedent in which any individuals or groups could stop government action due to the action “impeding their religion”. In this case the argument was over a federal agency building a road over a Native American religious site, they argued that since they couldn't practice their religion it was impeding upon their first amendment right to freedom of religion. The supreme court disagreed with the N.I.C.P.A. and ruled that since the government wasnt coercing the Native Americans to act in violation of their beliefs that it the actions of Lyng and the U.S.F.S were constitutional.]]> 2021-11-22 15:52:59 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906443499 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906444494 This is judicial activism because the court stated that corporations were essentially free to say what they want because they are protected under the First Amendment.]]> 2021-11-22 15:53:22 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906444494 rmoore163 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906446680 This case is an example of Judicial Activism, since the supreme court also ruled that it had the power to deal with state districting issues, even though it had previously declared such things "too political." They changed the precedent, saying that the Supreme Court does have the power to fight gerrymandering.]]> 2021-11-22 15:54:19 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906446680 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906448572 Citizens United won because the first amendment prohibits government from restricting companies from saying/publicizing political things , which is activism because the freedom of speech right was extended to not only citizens, it corporations as well]]> 2021-11-22 15:55:01 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906448572 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906449005 It was determined that the power to establish the new government was lawful. Instead of going to federal court, when such issued are confronted, they should defer to Congress and the president]]> 2021-11-22 15:55:13 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906449005 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906451884 Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state’s General Assembly was virtually ignored. The outcome was 6-2 baker and this was judicial activism because they ignored the 14 amendment.]]> 2021-11-22 15:56:36 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906451884 https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906452248 2021-11-22 15:56:45 UTC https://padlet.com/sdewitt13/jg1v7utmzwuy1b8x/wish/1906452248