List and explain three examples showing judicial restraint.
http://voices.yahoo.com/judicial-activism-restraint-role-supreme-23898.html?cat=37
http://washingtonindependent.com/46972/ricci-case-as-example-of-sotomayors-judicial-restraint
thankyou!
You're welcome.
Judicial restraint refers to the approach adopted by judges in which they exercise caution and limit their own power by deferring to the decisions made by the legislative and executive branches of government, as well as adhering strictly to the text and original intent of the constitution. Here are three examples that demonstrate judicial restraint:
1. Deferring to Legislative Authority:
In cases involving constitutional challenges to laws or regulations passed by the legislature, judges practicing restraint may opt to defer to legislative authority. Rather than overturning the law, they allow the democratic process to play out and respect the decision-making power of the elected representatives. This approach allows the legislative branch to exercise its intended role in shaping public policy. For example, in the landmark 2012 case NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court upheld most provisions of the Affordable Care Act, demonstrating a degree of judicial restraint by deferring to Congress' authority to regulate health care.
2. Respect for Precedent:
Judicial restraint is often evident when judges respect previous rulings made by higher courts. Following the principle of stare decisis, which means "to stand by things decided," they prioritize the need for consistency and stability in the law. This means that unless there are compelling reasons to reverse or reject prior decisions, judges will typically adhere to established legal precedent. A notable example of this restraint can be observed in the Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), where the Court reaffirmed the core holding of Roe v. Wade (1973), upholding abortion rights, emphasizing the importance of respecting precedent.
3. Avoiding Political Questions:
Judicial restraint is also evident when judges exercise caution in deciding cases that involve political matters better resolved through the political process rather than through the courts. The courts are reluctant to intervene in disputes that require subjective policy judgments or balancing competing interests. An example of this restraint can be seen in the 2000 case of Bush v. Gore, where the Supreme Court's ruling in favor of George W. Bush was explicitly limited to the unique circumstances of the presidential election and explicitly stated that the decision should not be cited as a precedent for future cases.
Overall, judicial restraint reflects a mindset where judges exercise self-restraint, deferring to other branches of government, respecting precedent, and limiting judicial intervention in political matters.