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.
IS it (B)
No.
http://usconservatives.about.com/od/glossaryterms/g/Judicial_Restraint.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_restraint
The links you sent me now i think it is A
Right.
Thank you!
You're welcome.
Actually, according to the doctrine of judicial restraint, the judiciary should defer to the decisions of elected officials, which means that (A) is the correct answer.
To arrive at this answer, you can break down the options and examine the characteristics of judicial restraint. Judicial restraint is a legal philosophy that argues that judges should generally defer to the decisions of elected officials, such as legislators and executive branch officials. The rationale behind this approach is that elected officials are accountable to the people and have the authority to make policy decisions.
Option (B) suggests that judicial restraint involves denying most appeals for retrials. While this may be a possible outcome in some cases, it is not a defining characteristic of judicial restraint. The doctrine of judicial restraint is primarily about deferring to elected officials, rather than about specific practices related to appeals.
Option (C) suggests that judicial restraint involves denying individual rights when they conflict with the majority's desires. However, this option conflates the doctrine of judicial restraint with majoritarianism. Judicial restraint does focus on the deference to elected officials, but it also recognizes the importance of protecting individual rights and liberties, regardless of majority opinions.
In summary, the correct answer is (A) - according to the doctrine of judicial restraint, the judiciary should defer to the decisions of elected officials.