Which of the following develops a logical argument about how judicial restraint supports the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision?(1 point)
Responses
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the Supreme Court did not challenge the actions of the executive or legislative branches.
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the Supreme Court did not challenge the actions of the executive or legislative branches.
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the actions of the legislative and judicial branches.
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the actions of the legislative and judicial branches.
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision invalidated the separate but equal doctrine.
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision invalidated the separate but equal doctrine.
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the legislative intent of the equal protections clause.
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the legislative intent of the equal protections clause.
a b c or d
I apologize for the confusion. The correct answer is:
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the Supreme Court did not challenge the actions of the executive or legislative branches.
The correct response is:
Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision invalidated the separate but equal doctrine.
To understand this argument, we need to first familiarize ourselves with the concept of judicial restraint and the context of the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
Judicial restraint refers to the approach taken by judges to defer to the other branches of government, particularly the legislative branch, when determining the constitutionality of laws. This approach emphasizes the limited role of the judiciary and its reluctance to interfere with the decisions made by elected officials.
In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. This doctrine allowed for the segregation of public facilities based on race as long as the facilities provided were deemed to be equal in quality. The decision in Plessy v. Ferguson had a significant impact on the lives of African Americans as it legitimized racial segregation and led to the establishment of Jim Crow laws in the United States.
The argument that judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision is based on the belief that the Court did not challenge the actions of the legislative branch. By upholding the separate but equal doctrine, the Court deferred to the legislative intent and did not actively intervene to strike down the laws that allowed for racial segregation. This approach aligns with the concept of judicial restraint, as the Court chose to uphold the decision made by the elected officials rather than asserting its own judgment.
Therefore, the correct response is: "Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision invalidated the separate but equal doctrine."