Which of the following develops a logical argument about how judicial restraints supports the Supreme Court's Plessy v. Ferguson decision?
It could be argued that the concept of judicial restraint supports the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson. Judicial restraint is a doctrine that suggests judges should limit their power and stick to interpreting the Constitution as it is written, rather than making policy decisions or overturning long-standing precedents. In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the doctrine of "separate but equal."
By taking a restrained approach, the Court maintained the existing social order and deference to legislative decisions. They argued that racial segregation was a matter for each state to decide, and as long as the separate facilities provided to different races were deemed equal, they did not violate the Constitution. This interpretation aligned with the concept of judicial restraint, as the Court respected the separation of powers and the role of the states in making such determinations.
Furthermore, by deciding to uphold Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court avoided overstepping its boundaries and potentially encroaching on the legislative domain. In this sense, the law remained stable, and the Court remained cautious not to appear too activist in its decision-making. Through judicial restraint, the Court demonstrated a commitment to adhering to the precedents and limitations set forth by the Constitution.
Overall, the argument could be made that the principle of judicial restraint influenced the Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson by promoting a limited interpretation of the Constitution and respecting the separation of powers.