what is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court?(1 point) Responses 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 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 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. Judicial restraint means the court reviews the action; judicial activism means the court does not get involved. 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 contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court lies in the approach the court takes to interpreting and applying the law. Judicial restraint refers to a philosophy in which judges limit the exercise of their own power in order to defer to the decisions of elected officials and the political process. This approach promotes judicial modesty and adherence to the literal text of the law.
On the other hand, judicial activism refers to a philosophy in which judges are more willing to invoke their power to invalidate laws or government actions that they perceive as unconstitutional or politically unjust. This approach often involves interpreting the law broadly or creatively to achieve a desired outcome, and may involve the court actively shaping public policy.
Overall, the key distinction between judicial restraint and judicial activism is the level of involvement and intervention by the court in legal and policy matters. Judicial restraint prioritizes deference to elected officials and adherence to traditional legal principles, while judicial activism involves a more assertive role by the court in shaping legal and social change.