What is the contrast between the judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court?
Judicial restraint means the court does not include its own preferences; judicial activism means the court is silent on the issues of the branches.
Judicial restraint means the court reviews the action; judicial activism means the court does not get involved.
Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
Judicial restraint means the court takes ownership of the issues; judicial activism means the court has a lot of power.
The second option is the correct answer. Judicial restraint refers to the approach taken by the Supreme Court where they limit their own power and defer to the decisions made by the legislative and executive branches of government. They exercise restraint in intervening or overturning laws enacted by these branches unless they are clearly unconstitutional. In contrast, judicial activism refers to the approach taken by the Court where they actively interpret the laws and the Constitution, sometimes expanding or redefining certain rights or policies, and they are not afraid to intervene or overturn laws if they are deemed unconstitutional. Judicial activism is often associated with a more liberal or progressive perspective, while judicial restraint is associated with a more conservative or strict interpretation of the Constitution.
The correct answer is: Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
Judicial restraint refers to a philosophy in which the Supreme Court takes a more limited role in interpreting the Constitution and defers to the decisions of the elected branches of government. It means that the court exercises self-restraint and does not actively intervene or overturn legislative or executive actions.
On the other hand, judicial activism refers to a philosophy in which the Supreme Court takes a more active role in interpreting the Constitution and may strike down or overturn legislative or executive actions if they are deemed unconstitutional. It means that the court actively reviews the actions of the other branches of government and may assert its own preferences or values in its decisions.
The correct contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court is as follows:
Judicial restraint refers to an approach where the court exercises caution and limits its own power by giving deference to the decisions made by the legislative and executive branches of government. This approach emphasizes the importance of judicial modesty and restraint, with judges respecting the intent of the original framers of the constitution and deferring to elected officials.
On the other hand, judicial activism refers to a more proactive and interventionist approach taken by the courts. In this approach, judges are more willing to interpret and apply the Constitution in ways that address modern societal concerns, even if it requires going beyond the explicit language of the law. Judicial activism often involves shaping public policy and making decisions that have far-reaching implications.
So, to summarize, judicial restraint involves a more limited role for the courts, with deference to other branches of government, while judicial activism involves a more active and involved role for the courts in interpreting and shaping the law.