According to the doctrine of judicial restraint, the judiciary should?
http://www.jiskha.com/display.cgi?id=1325195328
According to the doctrine of judicial restraint, the judiciary should exercise caution and restraint in interpreting and applying the law. Essentially, it suggests that judges should limit the extent of their decision-making power and defer to the decisions made by the legislative and executive branches of government whenever possible. This doctrine emphasizes that judges should adhere closely to the original intent of the framers of the constitution and defer to established legal precedent.
To understand the doctrine of judicial restraint, you can study the writings and opinions of legal theorists and scholars who have explored this concept. Some notable authors in this area include Alexander Bickel, Felix Frankfurter, and Robert Bork. Additionally, you can analyze landmark judicial decisions that demonstrate judicial restraint and examine the reasoning and arguments put forth by the judges in those cases.
It's important to note that different legal scholars and judges may have varying interpretations and applications of judicial restraint, so it is a complex and nuanced concept.