Define judicial activism and judicial restraint. Explain the reasons that judges would exercise activism or restraint, and tell how Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education were examples of each.
(4 points)
Judicial activism refers to when judges actively interpret and apply the law to address societal issues and bring about social change. Judges who practice judicial activism may go beyond the literal interpretation of laws and consider the broader implications and effects of their decisions.
Judicial restraint, on the other hand, refers to when judges limit their interpretation of the law to the literal meaning and adhere strictly to precedent. Judges who practice judicial restraint are hesitant to make rulings that may be perceived as political or controversial, and prefer to defer to established legal principles.
Reasons for judges to exercise judicial activism may include a belief in using the law to promote justice and equality, a desire to address societal issues that have not been adequately resolved by legislation, or a recognition of changing social norms that require a reinterpretation of laws.
Reasons for judges to exercise judicial restraint may include a commitment to upholding the separation of powers and respecting the role of the legislative branch in creating laws, a preference for maintaining stability and predictability in the legal system, or a desire to avoid charges of judicial overreach or activism.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was an example of judicial restraint, as the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of segregation laws in the case by deferring to the precedent of "separate but equal." The Court did not actively challenge the discriminatory practices of segregation, opting instead to uphold the status quo.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was an example of judicial activism, as the Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional and overturned the precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson. The Court actively interpreted the Constitution to address the issue of racial segregation and promote equality, despite the controversy and pushback that followed the ruling.