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.
um
isnt the ai suppose to answer this
Through judicial activism, it is possible to ensure that the rights of individuals are given priority and their needs are provided for. A judge or a court of law is considered to be restrained when it is unwilling to depart from past cases laid down by the law. As a judge, you would exercise activism so that your rights as a citizen would be protected. Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education were examples of activism and restraint. In Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education, people were denied their rights unfairly because their racial background caused them to be discriminated against.
1.C
2. B
3. B
4. A
5. D
6. C
7. Warning: DONT COPY AND PASTE, CHANGE BEFORE SUBMITING!!
Through judicial activism, it is possible to ensure that the rights of individuals are given priority and their needs are provided for. A judge or a court of law is considered to be restrained when it is unwilling to depart from past cases laid down by the law. As a judge, you would exercise activism so that your rights as a citizen would be protected. Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education were examples of activism and restraint. In Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education, people were denied their rights unfairly because their racial background caused them to be discriminated against.
Good luck!
- Amy ^v^
Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two different approaches that judges can adopt when interpreting and applying the law.
1. Judicial activism: Judicial activism occurs when judges actively interpret and apply the law with an intention to promote social change, advance individual rights, or address perceived injustices. Activist judges tend to take an expansive view of the Constitution and may be more willing to overturn or reinterpret existing laws. They often view themselves as playing a role in shaping public policy through their decisions.
Reasons for judicial activism:
a. Filling gaps in legislation: Activist judges may believe that the legislature has left certain issues unaddressed, and thus they step in to make decisions that fill those gaps.
b. Protecting individual rights: Activist judges may use their powers to protect or expand individual rights, even if it means going against traditional interpretations or popular opinion.
c. Correcting perceived injustices: Judges may exercise activism to rectify perceived social or systemic injustices, aiming to achieve a fairer outcome.
Example of judicial activism - Brown v. Board of Education (1954):
In this landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. The Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, determined that the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was inherently unequal and violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The justices exercised judicial activism by effectively overturning a long-standing precedent and promoting significant social change in ending racial segregation.
2. Judicial restraint: Judicial restraint is characterized by judges adhering to the original intent of the Constitution and deferring to the legislature's judgment in matters of public policy. Judges who practice restraintlimit their rulings to the narrowest possible interpretation of the law, avoiding broad social or political questions.
Reasons for judicial restraint:
a. Respect for separation of powers: Restraint-minded judges believe in maintaining the balance of power among the three branches of government. They defer to the legislature's role in creating and amending laws, rather than making policy decisions themselves.
b. Judicial modesty: Restraint-minded judges believe in the limited role of the judiciary and presume that laws enacted by the legislature are constitutional, unless proven otherwise.
c. Stability and predictability: Judges exercising restraint may prioritize stability and predictability in legal interpretations, wanting to avoid abrupt changes or disruptions that can arise from more active judicial decision-making.
Example of judicial restraint - Plessy v. Ferguson (1896):
Plessy v. Ferguson was a Supreme Court case that upheld racial segregation under the doctrine of "separate but equal." The Court ruled that state laws requiring separate facilities for African Americans did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. This decision exhibited judicial restraint because the justices interpreted the law based on the prevalent social attitudes and norms of the time. They chose not to interfere with the state's policy, preferring to defer to the legislature and maintaining stability in societal arrangements, even if they were deemed unfair in hindsight.
In contrast to Plessy, Brown v. Board of Education demonstrated judicial activism by actively championing equal rights and directly challenging the prevailing social and legal norms.