Judicial Philosophy of the Supreme Court
Judicial philosophy is a concept that refers to the way judges understand and interpret the law in relation to the specific cases they are handling. This concept emerges from the fact that while laws are universal and broad, they need to be applied to specific cases based on the judge's understanding and interpretation of the law as well as the unique circumstances surrounding the case. The two most common judicial philosophies of the Supreme Court are judicial activism and judicial restraint, which have influenced various cases including Gore vs. Bush (2000) and Obergefell vs. Hodges (2015). Judicial activism refers to a philosophy in which judges depart from conventional precedents to adopt new, progressive social policies whereas judicial restraint is a philosophy in which judges limit the exercise of their own authority (Bendor, 2011).
Judicial activism of the Supreme Court influenced cases like Gore vs. Bush (2000) since judges failed to enable Florida to determine who won the Presidency but instead handed it to George W. Bush. In this case, the Supreme Court took an active role in resolving this political problem and failed to protect the principle of the preeminence of states' rights (Toobin, 2010)....
On the other hand, judicial restraint influenced Obergefell vs. Hodges (2015) since the court determined that gay marriage is protected by the Constitution based on the Fourteenth Amendment. In this case, the Supreme Court limited the exercise of its own power on the premise that the Constitution does not provide an explicit right to marriage, but gay marriage is a fundamental right in the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection rights (Michaelson, 2015).
Social Security
Social Security is a trust fund that contains monetary reserves for survivors, the elderly, retirees and disability insurance programs (Fox Business, 2016). This trust fund has continued to play a crucial role in promoting the well-being of survivors, the elderly, retirees, and disabled individuals in the American society. However, the trust fund has become a politically controversial topic in the recent past since its funded by payroll taxes on wages. In light of the debates and issues relating to Social Security, it is possible for the fund to run out within the next ten years or so. According to Sahadi (2016), Social Security will only have adequate revenue to pay 79% of promised benefits and run out by 2034. This is primary because its two trust funds i.e.…
