Judicial Activism versus Judicial Restraint: Selict one Supreme court decision.

(Pidot , 2006 In returning to the original ideas presented in the Fourteenth Amendment , O ' Connor acknowledged that while "government may treat people differently because of their race only for the most compelling reasons (Robinson , Franklin Epermanis , 2007 , she also found that diversity , itself , could "serve such an interest (Robinson , Franklin Epermanis , 2007 . It is in these last assertions that the most egregious example of judicial activism is likely to be convincingly demonstrated

As mentioned , the original language of the Equal Protection Clause which is the constitutional basis for the Court

's decision in Grutter v Bollinger , fails to mention anything whatsoever about the preservation or enabling of diversity and , instead , seems to suggest that the elimination of prejudice and discrimination are the only goals set forth under the provision itself

Because the concept of judicial restraint is that judges should limit their personal power in to more accurately uphold the legislative and constitutional precedents which serve to shape the laws of the American democracy , the issue of diversity as a valued end in itself seems to be an example of judicial activism

Of course , the protection of minority rights is desirable in a democracy , the original impetus behind affirmative action targeted a limited and time-specific set of strategies to redress an historical imbalance in social-poltical justice which was based on ethnicity and race . The idea that "diversity has become a legitimate organizational goal in and of itself--one which is sufficient to serve a compelling government interest (Robinson , Franklin Epermanis , 2007 ) is a concept which cannot be demonstrated to have been derived from the Constitution or the existing affirmative action statues which occasioned the Grutter v . Bollinger case . Under the Supreme Court 's ruling , the existing idea that affirmative action redress was to be of limited duration may have been skewed...