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.
Judicial activism refers to the philosophy that judges should interpret the law in a way that furthers social justice and promotes progressive change. This approach often involves judges making bold decisions that go beyond existing laws and precedent in order to address perceived injustices or promote social change.
On the other hand, judicial restraint is the philosophy that judges should limit the exercise of their own power and defer to the decisions made by democratically elected branches of government. Proponents of judicial restraint argue that judges should only intervene when there is a clear violation of the Constitution or established laws.
In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court exhibited judicial restraint by upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. The Court deferred to the prevailing societal norms and did not challenge the discriminatory laws in place at that time.
In contrast, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) exemplified judicial activism as the Supreme Court overturned the precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson and declared that state laws segregating public schools were unconstitutional. This decision was a bold move to promote equality and social change, despite strong opposition from some sectors of society.
Reasons for judges to exercise activism or restraint include their interpretation of the law, their values and beliefs, their perception of societal needs, and the level of deference they believe is appropriate to the legislative and executive branches of government. Ultimately, the balance between judicial activism and restraint is a complex and ongoing debate in legal and political circles.