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 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 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 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 takes ownership of the issues; judicial activism means the court has a lot of power.
The correct response is: Judicial restraint means the court does not include its own preferences; judicial activism means the court takes ownership of the issues and has a lot of power.
The contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court can be summarized as follows:
1. Judicial restraint: This approach emphasizes a limited role for the courts in interpreting and applying the law. Judges who adhere to judicial restraint believe that the judiciary should defer to the decisions made by the elected branches of government (such as the legislature or executive) and avoid taking an active role in shaping public policy. They are generally hesitant to overturn laws or policies unless they clearly violate the Constitution.
2. Judicial activism: This approach takes a more active role for the courts in shaping public policy and interpreting the Constitution. Judges who embrace judicial activism are more likely to challenge laws and policies that they believe infringe upon individual rights or are inconsistent with their interpretation of the Constitution. They are more willing to strike down laws passed by the legislature or executive branch if they deem them unconstitutional.
In summary, the key difference between judicial restraint and judicial activism lies in the level of involvement the courts should have in shaping public policy and their willingness to overturn laws. Judicial restraint advocates for a more limited role, while judicial activism advocates for a more active and involved judiciary.
The contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court can be explained as follows:
- Judicial restraint refers to the approach taken by a court where they exercise caution and show deference to the other branches of government. In this approach, the court carefully reviews and interprets laws and actions, but generally avoids overriding the decisions made by elected officials unless they are clearly unconstitutional.
To understand judicial restraint in the Supreme Court, one can look at the following characteristics:
- The court focuses on interpreting the law as it is written and adheres closely to the original intent of the legislators.
- They prioritize stability and precedent, meaning they are hesitant to make significant changes to established legal principles.
- The court exercises self-restraint by limiting its involvement in policy decisions and deferring to the other branches of government when possible.
- On the other hand, judicial activism refers to a more assertive role taken by a court in shaping and influencing public policy. In this approach, the court is more willing to intervene and make decisions that could alter existing laws or create new ones. Judicial activism is often associated with a broader interpretation of the Constitution and a desire to promote social justice.
To understand judicial activism in the Supreme Court, one can look at the following characteristics:
- The court is more willing to interpret the law broadly and update it to reflect changing societal needs and values.
- They prioritize advancing individual rights and equality, sometimes even at the expense of established precedent or legislative intent.
- The court takes an active role in addressing societal issues and may sometimes extend its power to influence laws and policies beyond what is explicitly granted by the Constitution.
It's important to note that the use of these terms can sometimes be subjective, and the approach taken by the Supreme Court can vary depending on the justices' individual philosophies and the specific cases they are addressing.