How justices make decisions

Different Legal Philosophies

All the Supreme Court Justices were prestigious Judges and accomplished lawyers before being appointed to the Supreme Court. Even though they all know similar information, they decide cases very differently from each other because they have different legal philosophies. Some Justices believe Judges should be more limited and some Justices believe Judges should be less limited. Republican Presidents and Senators prefer Justices who are more limited and Democrat Presidents and Senators prefer Judges who are less limited.

Strict Constructionist

The first thing to know about this phrase is it's not always considered the correct name! But I use it because that is what you will hear the most. It refers to Judges who believe their role is limited to interpreting the original Constitution based upon the actual text. So these Judges are sometimes known as "originalists" or "textualists." Pros: less subjective, more predictable. Cons: may not result in a ruling or maybe an absurd ruling.

Judicial Activist

Like the other side, this phrase is also difficult to define! But it generally refers to Judges who believe their role is to fill in the gaps between the text and the issue presented. Laws passed by Congress or a state sometimes cannot precisely predict every situation, and an activist judge would decide a case based upon what s/he thinks the law meant to do in that case. Pros: may lead on changing social issues. Cons: more subjective.