What is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court?
A) Judicial restraint means the court reviews the action; judicial activism means the court does not get involved.
B) Judicial restraint means the court takes ownership of the issues; judicial activism means the court has a lot of power.
C) Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
D) Judicial restraint means the court does not include its own preferences; judicial activism means the court is silent on the issues of the branches.
The correct answer is D) Judicial restraint means the court does not include its own preferences; judicial activism means the court is silent on the issues of the branches.
To determine the correct contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court, we need to understand their definitions:
1. Judicial restraint: This refers to a philosophy or approach where judges exercise caution and limit their own power. Under judicial restraint, judges adhere closely to the original intent of the Constitution and statutory interpretation, and they generally defer to the decisions made by elected officials and the other branches of government.
2. Judicial activism: This is a philosophy or approach where judges actively interpret the Constitution and statutes to enact or advance specific political or social goals. Judicial activists tend to take a more expansive view of constitutional interpretation and are willing to strike down laws or government actions that they believe violate individual rights, even if not explicitly stated in the Constitution.
With this understanding, we can see that the correct contrast is option D. Judicial restraint means the court does not include its own preferences, meaning that judges exercise caution and limit their own power. On the other hand, judicial activism means the court is not silent on the issues of the branches, as it actively interprets the Constitution and statutes to advance specific goals, even if it requires striking down laws or government actions that they deem unconstitutional.
The answer is D) 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 refers to the belief that the judiciary should limit its power and defer to the decisions made by the elected branches of government, such as the legislative and executive branches. It generally involves judges interpreting the law narrowly and avoiding making policy decisions. Essentially, it means that the court should be restrained in its exercise of judicial power.
On the other hand, judicial activism represents a more active role for the judiciary. It involves the court taking a proactive approach in interpreting the law and making decisions that impact society. Judicial activists are more likely to exercise their own preferences and values when making decisions, even if it means going against the decisions or intent of the other branches of government.
So, the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism can be summarized as follows: Judicial restraint means the court does not include its own preferences and defers to the other branches, while judicial activism means the court takes a proactive role and is more likely to make decisions based on its own values.
The correct answer is D) 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 refers to a philosophy that judges should interpret the Constitution based on its original meaning and intent, and should avoid using their personal preferences or imposing their own policy preferences on the laws. This philosophy encourages judges to defer to the elected branches of government, such as Congress, and not interfere unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution.
On the other hand, judicial activism is a philosophy that judges should interpret the Constitution more broadly and take a more active role in shaping public policy. This approach allows judges to sometimes go beyond the text of the Constitution or the intent of the framers to address what they perceive as societal injustices. Judicial activists often argue that the courts should play a more proactive role in protecting individual rights and advancing social progress.
So, while judicial restraint emphasizes limiting the court's involvement and not including personal preferences, judicial activism involves a more active role for the court in shaping policy and advocating for societal change.