Define Judicial activism 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.

Question

Define Judicial activism 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)

Answer 1

Judicial activism refers to the practice of judges interpreting the law in a way that advances their own political or social agenda, often by expanding the scope of rights or invalidating laws. On the other hand, judicial restraint refers to the practice of judges deferring to the legislative or executive branches and interpreting the law narrowly.

Judges may exercise activism when they believe that a particular law or policy is unjust or unconstitutional, and they want to bring about social change. They may also try to fill gaps in the law to address pressing issues or protect individual rights. On the other hand, judges may exercise restraint when they believe that it is not their role to make policy decisions or when they believe that the law is clear and should be upheld.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) is an example of judicial activism. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld state laws requiring segregation on trains, establishing the "separate but equal" doctrine. The Court allowed for segregation based on race, despite the clear violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is an example of judicial restraint. In this case, the Supreme Court overruled Plessy v. Ferguson and declared that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, as it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court narrowly interpreted the law to address the issue at hand and bring about social change.

Answer 2

One paragraph please :D

Answer 3

Judicial activism refers to judges interpreting the law in a way that advances their own political or social agenda, while judicial restraint involves judges deferring to the legislative or executive branches and interpreting the law narrowly. Judges may exercise activism to address perceived injustices or social problems, while they may exercise restraint when they believe it is not their role to make policy decisions or when the law is clear and should be upheld. Plessy v. Ferguson exemplifies judicial activism as the Supreme Court upheld segregation laws under the "separate but equal" doctrine despite clear violations of the 14th Amendment. In contrast, Brown v. Board of Education demonstrates judicial restraint as the Court overruled Plessy and declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional, narrowly interpreting the law to bring about social change and uphold the equal protection clause.

Answer 4

One simplified paragraph please also short :)

Answer 5

Judicial activism happens when judges interpret laws to push their own beliefs or agendas, while judicial restraint is when they interpret laws narrowly and defer to other branches. Judges might be activist if they want to bring social change or protect rights, while they might practice restraint if they believe in upholding the law as it stands or leaving policy decisions to others. Plessy v. Ferguson is an example of judicial activism as the Court upheld segregation laws, and Brown v. Board of Education demonstrates judicial restraint as the Court overturned segregation in public schools based on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.