Three controversial issues that were handled by the courts are abortion, affirmative action, and capital punishment.
One of the major themes of Justice Brennan's judicial philosophy is, ‘“...due process”’ is a concept whose meaning is not static, frozen by the framers in 1787, but one that changes over time, as society changes”(Irons 330). Another major theme is ‘“ The view that all matters of substantive policy should be resolved through the majoritarian process has appeal under some circumstances, but I think ultimately it will not do”(Irons 330). He argues that what it can't do is protect rights of minorities and it wont give them a fair voice in government decisions. He has a loose constructionist perspective. This is supported when he says, “…the government exists to serve the needs of individuals and to protect their dignity, and ends with the notion that the meaning of the constitution must change as society changes”(Irons 331). …show more content…
If legislators follow the rules, they are constrained only by the explicit commands of the constitution”(Irons 332). Another major theme is, “ political majorities are entitled to enact “positive law” and to impose their moral views on minorities. Laws take on a form of moral goodness because they have been enacted into positive law”(Irons 332). He adopted more of a strict constructionist view. This is demonstrated when he says, “The idea of a ‘“living constitution”’ struck Rehnquist as a negation of ‘“the nature of political value judgements in a democratic society.”’He agreed that constitutional safeguards for individual liberty…”(Irons
One of the major themes of Justice Brennan's judicial philosophy is, ‘“...due process”’ is a concept whose meaning is not static, frozen by the framers in 1787, but one that changes over time, as society changes”(Irons 330). Another major theme is ‘“ The view that all matters of substantive policy should be resolved through the majoritarian process has appeal under some circumstances, but I think ultimately it will not do”(Irons 330). He argues that what it can't do is protect rights of minorities and it wont give them a fair voice in government decisions. He has a loose constructionist perspective. This is supported when he says, “…the government exists to serve the needs of individuals and to protect their dignity, and ends with the notion that the meaning of the constitution must change as society changes”(Irons 331). …show more content…
If legislators follow the rules, they are constrained only by the explicit commands of the constitution”(Irons 332). Another major theme is, “ political majorities are entitled to enact “positive law” and to impose their moral views on minorities. Laws take on a form of moral goodness because they have been enacted into positive law”(Irons 332). He adopted more of a strict constructionist view. This is demonstrated when he says, “The idea of a ‘“living constitution”’ struck Rehnquist as a negation of ‘“the nature of political value judgements in a democratic society.”’He agreed that constitutional safeguards for individual liberty…”(Irons