What is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court?(1 point)
Responses
Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
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 does not include its own preferences; judicial activism means the court is silent on the issues of the branches.
Judicial restraint means the court takes ownership of the issues; judicial activism means the court has a lot of power.
Judicial restraint means that the court exercises self-restraint and limits its own power by deferring to the other branches of government and respecting their decisions. It involves refraining from making broad or controversial rulings and instead focusing on interpreting the law strictly as written.
On the other hand, judicial activism refers to a more assertive approach where the court actively engages in shaping public policy and making broad interpretations of the Constitution. It involves the court taking a more proactive role in addressing societal issues and advancing certain ideologies, even if it means overruling or disregarding previous decisions or legislative actions.
In summary, the main contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism lies in the level of involvement and assertiveness of the court in interpreting and influencing the law. Judicial restraint involves a more limited role for the court, while judicial activism involves a more active and powerful role for the court in shaping public policy.
The correct answer is:
Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
The correct answer is:
The contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court lies in their approach towards interpreting and applying the Constitution.
Judicial restraint refers to a philosophy where the court exercises caution and limits its own powers. It involves a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the original intent of the framers of the Constitution and deferring to the decisions made by elected branches of government. In other words, the court should exercise restraint and avoid taking an active role in shaping public policy or overturning laws passed by other branches unless they are clearly unconstitutional.
On the other hand, judicial activism is a philosophy where the court takes a more active role in interpreting the Constitution and shaping public policy. It involves a more liberal interpretation of the Constitution, allowing the court to go beyond the literal text of the Constitution and consider broader societal implications. Judicial activism often entails the court stepping in to protect individual rights and liberties, even when doing so may involve overturning laws or decisions made by elected branches of government.
To understand the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism, one can study the opinions and decisions of the Supreme Court Justices, paying attention to their approach to constitutional interpretation and their willingness to defer to the other branches of government. It is important to analyze the reasoning and arguments presented in the court's opinions to identify whether the justices are exercising restraint or engaging in activism.