Blog 4

Case 1: Lemon V Kurtzman
Ruling: Non-secular laws and statutes are in violation of the first amendment.
No dissent
Shows judicial activism because the judges interpreted the bill of rights in context of the time and ruled accordingly.
I think that this was definitely the right choice because it pushed schools towards religious equality and secularism. I don't think that religion should be encouraged or supported in any way that secularism isn't.

Case 2: Texas V Johnson
Ruling: The burning of the American flag is constitutional and protected by the first amendment's freedom of speech and expression.
5-4 vote, majority in favor of allowing this political expression
Somewhat shows judicial restraint because they referred to the fact that the "bedrock principle" of the first amendment is to allow freedom of expression regardless of society's opinion.
I think this was a fair ruling because the first amendment can only protect citizens' rights. It is also fairly clear that its purpose is just that.

Case 3: Bush V Gore
Ruling: It would be unconstitutional to recount ballots.
5-4 vote, majority in favor of no recount
Shows judicial restraint because they based their ruling off of precedent that said ballots can't be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment."
I don't agree entirely with this decision because given the context of the situation it seems more reasonable to me to do a recount, even if it is unfair in practice. For the given situation, the recount was, in theory, fair.