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 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.
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: Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
Judicial restraint refers to a philosophy in which judges limit their power and defer to the decisions made by other branches of government or elected officials. It emphasizes judicial self-restraint and promotes a conservative approach, where judges avoid making decisions that could be seen as legislating from the bench.
On the other hand, judicial activism involves judges actively interpreting the Constitution and laws, often making bold decisions that go beyond the specific facts of the case. These judges are more willing to strike down or reinterpret existing laws if they are deemed unconstitutional or unfair. Judicial activism is often associated with a more liberal approach.
In summary, the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism lies in the level of involvement the court takes in reviewing actions and making decisions. Judicial restraint is a more passive approach where the court avoids involvement, while judicial activism involves an active review and interpretation of actions.
The correct contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court is as follows:
- Judicial restraint: This approach suggests that the court should exercise caution and limit its own power by deferring to the decisions of elected branches of government. It entails a more conservative or strict interpretation of the Constitution, with a focus on upholding precedent and avoiding interference in policy matters.
- Judicial activism: Conversely, judicial activism involves a more assertive role for the court in shaping and influencing public policy. It signifies a willingness to interpret the Constitution in a broader and more flexible manner, potentially creating new rights or expanding existing ones. This approach is often associated with a more progressive or liberal interpretation of the Constitution.
In summary, judicial restraint involves a more limited role for the court, while judicial activism implies a more active and interventionist approach by the court in shaping legal and constitutional issues.
The correct contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court is that judicial restraint means the court exercises caution and limits its own power by deferring to the other branches of government, while judicial activism refers to when the court actively interprets the Constitution and laws to shape public policy and bring about social change.
To determine the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism, it's crucial to understand the basics of each concept:
1. Judicial Restraint: This approach advocates for a limited role of the judiciary, with judges showing deference to the decisions made by elected officials and the other branches of government. Judges practicing judicial restraint tend to strictly interpret the Constitution and laws, focusing on the original intent of the Framers. They are hesitant to overturn legislative decisions unless they clearly violate constitutional principles.
2. Judicial Activism: In contrast, judicial activism is characterized by judges taking a more active role in interpreting the law and making policy decisions. Activist judges are more likely to overturn legislative actions if they believe they violate certain rights or principles, regardless of the intentions of the legislators. This approach often involves expanding constitutional interpretations and interpreting laws broadly to advance specific social or political agendas.
Given these definitions, the correct contrast is that judicial restraint involves the court exercising caution and showing deference to other branches, while judicial activism sees the court taking a more active, policy-shaping role and interpreting the law more expansively.