What is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court? (1 point) 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 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 the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action
The contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court is that judicial restraint involves a more limited and cautious approach, where the court defers to the decisions made by the other branches of government and avoids striking down laws unless they clearly violate the Constitution. On the other hand, judicial activism involves a more active and interventionist role for the court, where they are more willing to assert their own preferences and beliefs, and to overturn or reinterpret laws passed by the other branches of government.
So what’s the answer?
The answer is: Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
The contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:
1. Judicial Restraint: This refers to an approach where the court exercises self-restraint and limits its own power. In cases of judicial restraint, the court typically gives deference to the decisions made by elected officials and avoids intervening in political or policy matters. This approach emphasizes the importance of precedent and strictly interpreting the original intent of the Constitution.
2. Judicial Activism: On the other hand, judicial activism is an approach where the court actively engages in shaping public policy and legislation. In cases of judicial activism, the court is more willing to strike down laws or take action on social and political issues. This approach often involves the court interpreting the Constitution more broadly or adapting the meaning of laws to address societal changes or protect individual rights.
In summary, judicial restraint means the court tends to limit its own power and defer to elected officials, while judicial activism involves the court taking a more active role in shaping policy and interpreting laws.
The contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court can be explained as follows:
1. Judicial Restraint: Judicial restraint refers to a judicial philosophy in which the court exercises caution and limits its role to reviewing the constitutionality of laws and government actions. Judges who adhere to judicial restraint believe that the court should show deference to the other branches of government and should not actively involve themselves in policy-making or legislative decisions. The focus in judicial restraint is on interpreting the law as written, rather than making new law or shaping public policy. This approach gives significant weight to precedent and seeks to maintain the status quo unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution.
2. Judicial Activism: Judicial activism, on the other hand, is a judicial philosophy in which the court takes an active role in shaping public policy and making decisions that go beyond merely interpreting the law as it exists. Judges who support judicial activism believe that the court should be more proactive in promoting social change and advancing certain values or rights, even if it means going against precedent or intervening in the decisions of the other branches of government. This approach often involves the court's active participation in political, social, and economic issues.
To determine whether a court is practicing judicial restraint or judicial activism, it is important to analyze the court's decisions and actions. Factors to consider include whether the court interprets the law narrowly or broadly, how much deference it gives to the legislature or executive branch, whether it relies heavily on precedent or takes a more novel approach, and how much it engages in policy-making or shaping societal values.
It is worth noting that the terms "judicial restraint" and "judicial activism" are not strictly defined or universally agreed upon, and different judges and scholars may interpret them differently. The distinction between the two is often a matter of debate and can vary depending on the specific case or issue being discussed.