Define judicial activism and judicial restraint. Explain the reasons that judges would exercise activism or restraint, and tell how Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education were examples of each. (4 points)
Judicial activism refers to when judges are willing to interpret the law in a way that goes beyond traditional legal standards and precedent. They may use their power to make decisions that align with their own personal beliefs or to address certain social issues. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, involves judges limiting the use of their power and strictly interpreting the law based on legal precedent and the Constitution.
Judges may exercise activism when they believe that the law is outdated or unjust and needs to be changed. They may also feel compelled to address social injustices or protect individual rights. Conversely, judges may choose to exercise restraint in order to uphold the principles of separation of powers and maintain the integrity of the legal system.
Plessy v. Ferguson, a Supreme Court case from 1896, is an example of judicial restraint. In this case, the Court upheld the constitutionality of segregation based on the "separate but equal" doctrine. The decision maintained the status quo and did not challenge existing laws, demonstrating judicial restraint.
Brown v. Board of Education, a groundbreaking case from 1954, is an example of judicial activism. In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson and declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The decision was a significant departure from established legal standards and marked a major step towards addressing racial inequality in the United States.