what is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the supreme court?
judicial restraint means the court reviews the action; judicial activism means the court does not get involved
judicial restraint means the court does not include its own preferences; judicial activism means the court is silent on he issues of the branches.
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 correct answer is:
- Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; it exercises self-restraint and defers to the decisions made by the legislative and executive branches. It interprets the Constitution narrowly and avoids making policy decisions.
- Judicial activism, on the other hand, means the court takes an active role in shaping and interpreting the law. It exercises its own preferences and values, often expanding the scope of individual rights and making policy decisions that go beyond what is explicitly stated in the Constitution.
The contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:
1. Judicial restraint: This approach refers to a philosophy in which the court exercises caution and limits its own power. Judges practicing judicial restraint typically defer to the decisions made by the other branches of government, such as the legislative and executive branches. They believe that the Court's role is to review the constitutionality of actions rather than to overstep its bounds by actively shaping policy or making significant changes to existing laws.
2. Judicial activism: On the other hand, judicial activism describes a philosophy in which the Court plays a more active role in shaping public policy and interpreting the Constitution. Activist judges are more willing to strike down laws deemed unconstitutional, even if this requires going against previously established precedent. They are more likely to use their judicial power to push for social change and protect individual rights.
To sum it up, judicial restraint involves the court reviewing actions without getting too involved or overstepping its boundaries, while judicial activism involves the court actively shaping policy, interpreting the Constitution broadly, and potentially taking a more assertive role in addressing social issues.
The correct answer is:
The contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court lies in how the court approaches its involvement and decision-making in legal matters.
Judicial restraint refers to a philosophy where the court exercises caution and shows deference to the other branches of government, such as the legislative and executive branches. The court engages in limited interpretation of the Constitution and avoids making decisions that may be considered intrusive or overreaching.
On the other hand, judicial activism refers to a philosophy where the court actively engages in shaping public policy and interpreting the Constitution broadly. It involves taking a more proactive and interventionist role in resolving legal issues, even if it means going beyond what the other branches of government intended.
To determine the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism, one can examine the court's approach to reviewing actions and involvement in legal matters. In judicial restraint, the court typically reviews the action but exercises caution, avoiding intrusion and deference to other branches. In contrast, under judicial activism, the court may review the action more extensively and not shy away from getting involved, even if it means overstepping the boundaries set by other branches.
It is important to note that the question provided some incorrect options. Judicial restraint does not mean the court does not include its own preferences, nor does it mean the court takes ownership of the issues. Similarly, judicial activism does not mean the court is silent on the issues of the branches, nor does it mean the court has a lot of power (though it may exercise more power compared to judicial restraint).