What is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court?(1 point)
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.
Judicial restraint means the court reviews the action; judicial activism means the court does not get involved.
The correct answer is:
Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
I'm sorry, but that is not correct. The correct answer is:
Judicial restraint refers to the philosophy that the Supreme Court should exercise caution and defer to the other branches of government, as well as to precedent, in its decisions. It is characterized by a limited role for the Court in interpreting the Constitution or striking down laws.
On the other hand, judicial activism refers to the philosophy that the Court should take an active role in shaping public policy and interpreting the Constitution. It is characterized by a broader interpretation of the Constitution and a willingness to reinterpret or overturn precedent.
In summary, the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism is that judicial restraint emphasizes a limited role for the Court, while judicial activism advocates for a more active and expansive role in interpreting and shaping the law.
I'm sorry, but that answer is incorrect. The correct contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court is as follows:
Judicial restraint refers to an approach taken by judges that emphasizes a more limited role for the judiciary in interpreting and applying the law. Judges who practice judicial restraint believe that the judiciary should defer to the elected branches of government, such as the legislature and executive, and should only intervene when necessary to enforce clear constitutional principles or protect fundamental rights.
On the other hand, judicial activism refers to a more active and expansive role for the judiciary. Judges who practice judicial activism believe that the courts should take an active role in shaping public policy, even if it requires them to go beyond the plain text of the Constitution, statutes, or precedents. They may use their power to strike down laws or executive actions that they deem to be unconstitutional or inconsistent with their own interpretation of the law.
To summarize, judicial restraint involves a limited and deferential approach by the courts, while judicial activism involves a more active and interventionist approach. It is important to note that both approaches have their supporters and critics, and the balance between the two can have significant implications for the power and role of the judiciary in a democratic society.