What is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme court
Judicial restraint and judicial activism are two opposing philosophies in approaching the interpretation of the law in the Supreme Court.
Judicial restraint advocates for judges to limit their role to interpreting the law as written and deferring to the other branches of government when possible. Judges who adhere to judicial restraint believe that the judiciary should exercise restraint in overturning laws passed by the legislative branch, and should not make significant policy decisions from the bench.
On the other hand, judicial activism involves judges taking a more active role in shaping and interpreting the law. Judges who adhere to judicial activism are more likely to overturn laws passed by the legislative branch if they believe the laws are unconstitutional or violate individual rights. They may also be more willing to engage in policymaking from the bench.
In general, judicial restraint is associated with conservative justices who believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution, while judicial activism is associated with liberal justices who believe in a more flexible interpretation of the Constitution to reflect changing societal norms.
Overall, the key contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court lies in the extent to which judges believe they should intervene in and influence the lawmaking process.