There is a significant difference between liberal and conservative approaches under legal and constitutional law. Bailey and Maltzman (2011) establish that judges encounter optimal challenges in the determination of distinctive decisions. It is the responsibility of a judge to adhere to the rules and regulations of the platform objectively. Therefore, it becomes a constraint to the law’s personalities based on liberal or conservative alignments. It is arduous to incorporate unique appeal and perception to a ruling reason being the presence of a bench of judges or jury. Objectivity in the court is an essential factor in the system since it determines the ruling based on the evidence presented. Notably, the constrained court mainframe plays a proficient role in advocating for equity and promoting peaceful coexistence.
Social justice is a framework that involves the intersection of moral and constitutional regulations. One of the cases that are used in the assessment of constrained states in the court system in Texas vs. Johnson (1989). Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in Dallas outside the 1984 Republican National Convention offices (Bailey & Maltzman, 2011). Johnson was convicted for vandalizing a profoundly respected object. However, the judges ruled for Johnson stating the application of the First Amendment. The clause indicates that Congress lacks the mandate to indicate prioritization of particular religions due to freedom of speech, assembly, and press. In this case, Johnson was exercising his right of expression to public opinion.
On the one hand, the judges express the essence of the law against the prevalence of perceptive moral implication (Smith, 2018). On the other hand, the prosecutor utilizes the attitudinal model (Bailey & Maltzman, 2011). The concept focuses on the incorporation of punishment based on negative opinion regarding topical issues. It is the mandate of magistrates to objectively distinguish sentencing from the legal clause since the constitution takes precedence.
There is a profound demonstration of the constraint of the court due to the integration of virtues and moral constructs with legal declarations. Smith (2018), supports the decision by the court, arguing that Johnson was practicing his constitutional right of freedom of speech stipulated in the First Amendment. In the decision, the judges voted on their decision on whether to convict or acquit Johnson. Constitutional values should take ultimate priority when making court decisions and rulings. However, there is a question of minority rights when the majority influences very sensitive decisions.
Therefore, freedom of speech is an ideological value rather than legal. The minority judges had a different opinion than the court ruling in Texas v. Johnson was an idea that undervalued a critical national asset. (Bailey & Maltzman, 2011) assert that political elites likely influence ideology since they can invoke any particular idea of their choice. Self-interests influencing the idea challenge the legality of ideological values hence the need to uphold the legal values. According to the judges, the allusion of applying the attitudinal model risks compromising individualism and the implication of the clause (Smith, 2018). The central insight concerning the intersectionality of virtues and laws contributes to the optimal distribution of social justice practice among dynamic entities. Therefore, the judges establish an in-depth oversight of the court’s constraints among the professionals within the confines of certain legal frameworks.
Constitutional law proficiently promotes equality based on the integration of dynamic moral practices and abstract legal clauses. In this case, it is easier for distinctive parties involved to establish core values attributing to associated human behavior. In the case of Johnson, the liberalists viewed his actions as an exercise of stipulations in the First Amendment (Bailey & Maltzman, 2011). However, conservatism establishes the significance of disciplining an individual causing the disturbance. On the one hand, conservatism focuses on subjective appeal to the interpretation of peaceful coexistence under the spectrum of communism. On the other hand, liberalists use the law to justify Johnston’s individualistic approach to demonstrate the favorable implication of democracy. The conservatives suggest an ideological approach to the Johnson case, whereas the liberalists suggest legal values in making the decision.
Bailey, Maltzman A. and Forrest Maltzman. (2011). The Constrained Court: Law, Politics and the Decisions Justices Make. Princeton University Press.
Smith, R. A. (2018). The American anomaly: US politics and government in comparative perspective. Routledge.