What is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court?(1 point)
Responses
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 correct answer is: Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
Judicial restraint means that the court is more cautious and limits its power by deferring to the decisions made by the other branches of government, such as the legislative and executive branches. It focuses on interpreting the law as written and avoids making policy decisions. On the other hand, judicial activism refers to a more proactive approach by the court, where it actively involves itself in shaping and interpreting the law, even when it may go beyond the decisions of the other branches. It is more willing to make policy decisions and protect individual rights, even if it requires overruling or overturning existing laws.
what is the answer
The correct answer is:
Judicial restraint means the court is more cautious and limits its power by deferring to the decisions made by the other branches of government. Judicial activism refers to a more proactive approach where the court actively involves itself in shaping and interpreting the law, even when it may go beyond the decisions of the other branches.
The correct answer is: Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
To understand the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court, it's important to analyze their definitions and approaches.
1. Judicial restraint: This is an approach where judges believe in interpreting the law narrowly and deferring to the elected branches of government. Judges who practice judicial restraint tend to limit their own power and avoid engaging in policymaking. They believe that the role of the judiciary is to strictly interpret and apply the law, leaving policy decisions to the legislative and executive branches.
2. Judicial activism: On the other hand, judicial activism is an approach where judges are willing to interpret the law broadly and actively participate in policymaking through their decisions. Judges who practice judicial activism often take an expansive view of their role and may actively shape public policy based on their interpretation of the law, even if it goes beyond what the elected branches of government intended.
So, the contrast between the two can be summarized as follows: Judicial restraint involves a limited role for the courts, with judges refraining from getting involved in matters that are more appropriately addressed by the other branches of government. In contrast, judicial activism involves a more involved judicial role, with judges reviewing and potentially influencing actions taken by other branches of government.
To determine the correct answer, it is important to understand the definitions of judicial restraint and judicial activism and how they differ in their approach to the court's involvement in reviewing the action taken by other branches of government.