According to the doctrine of judicial restraint, the judiciary should:
a. defer to the decisions of elected officials.
b. deny most appeals for retrials.
c. deny individual rights when they conflict with the majority's desires.
d. decline to make any decision that requires judges to give added meaning to the words of the Consitution.
I THINK IT'S A OR D
Choose one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint
so it's (B)
I disagree.
so is it (C)
My word, your ignorance is appalling! If you want credit for this class, I humbly suggest you study your text materials and don't make wild guesses.
Please do not switch names on your posts.
The doctrine of judicial restraint refers to a philosophy followed by some judges that emphasizes the limited role of the judiciary in interpreting and applying the law. According to this doctrine, judges should not be too active in policymaking or intervening in legislative decisions. Instead, they should exercise self-restraint and defer to the decisions of other branches of government whenever possible.
Now, let's analyze each option based on this understanding of judicial restraint:
a. Defer to the decisions of elected officials: This option aligns with the principle of judicial restraint since it suggests that judges should give deference to the decisions made by elected officials. This idea resonates with the concept that judges should not second-guess or override the choices made by the legislative and executive branches, except in cases where they violate the constitution.
b. Deny most appeals for retrials: This option does not directly relate to the doctrine of judicial restraint. The idea of denying most appeals for retrials refers more to the philosophy of finality in judgments rather than the principle of limited judicial power.
c. Deny individual rights when they conflict with the majority's desires: This option contradicts the doctrine of judicial restraint. Judicial restraint emphasizes respecting the rights enshrined in the Constitution, even if they go against the desires of the majority. Protecting individual rights is often considered a fundamental duty of the judiciary, regardless of popular sentiment.
d. Decline to make any decision that requires judges to give added meaning to the words of the Constitution: This option aligns with the principle of judicial restraint. Judges who adhere to this doctrine would be hesitant to interpret the Constitution in broad or innovative ways that could be seen as adding meaning to the original text. Instead, they might focus more on applying the Constitution's original intent or deferring to existing legislative frameworks.
Therefore, based on the principles of judicial restraint, options a and d are the most aligned with this doctrine. However, it is essential to keep in mind that the interpretation of constitutional principles can vary among judges, and not all judges may strictly adhere to the doctrine of judicial restraint.