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.
Judicial activism refers to the tendency of judges to interpret laws and the Constitution in a way that expands or limits fundamental rights and liberties. In contrast, judicial restraint is the belief that judges should limit their power and defer to the other branches of government when making decisions.
Reasons for judicial activism can include a desire to correct perceived injustices, protect minority rights, or promote social change. On the other hand, judges may exercise restraint in order to uphold the principle of separation of powers, defer to legislative decisions, or avoid making controversial decisions.
In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court exercised judicial restraint by upholding state segregation laws on the grounds that separate but equal facilities were constitutional. This decision legitimized the practice of segregation and limited the rights of African Americans.
In contrast, Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was a clear example of judicial activism. In this case, the Supreme Court overturned the "separate but equal" doctrine established in Plessy and declared that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. The Court's decision in Brown marked a significant shift towards desegregation and the protection of civil rights.
Overall, the decision to exercise judicial activism or restraint often depends on the personal beliefs and values of the judges, as well as the specific legal and social context of the cases before them.