Which of the following develops a logical argument about how judicial restraints supports the supreme court plessy versus vargason decision
One possible development of a logical argument about how judicial restraints support the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson could be as follows:
- The concept of judicial restraint emphasizes the importance of judges interpreting and applying laws as they are written, rather than injecting personal beliefs or opinions into their decisions. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court's decision upholding racial segregation on public transportation was based on a strict interpretation of the "separate but equal" doctrine.
- By adhering to the principle of judicial restraint, the Court avoided overstepping its bounds and making a decision based on personal or political considerations. Instead, the justices focused on the text of the laws in question and applied them as they were written.
- Although hindsight has shown that the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was deeply flawed and perpetuated racial discrimination, the application of judicial restraint in that case can be seen as an attempt to maintain the Court's impartiality and respect for the rule of law.
- Ultimately, the doctrine of judicial restraint can be viewed as a double-edged sword. While it can help prevent judges from imposing their personal biases on legal decisions, it can also lead to the perpetuation of unjust or outdated laws if not coupled with a commitment to justice and equality.