What is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court?(1 point)

Question

Responses

Judicial restraint means the court reviews the action; judicial activism means the court does not get involved.
Judicial restraint means the court reviews the action; judicial activism means the court does not get involved.

Judicial restraint means the court does not include its own preferences; judicial activism means the court is silent on the issues of the branches.
Judicial restraint means the court does not include its own preferences; judicial activism means the court is silent on the issues of the branches.

Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.

Judicial restraint means the court takes ownership of the issues; judicial activism means the court has a lot of power.

Answer 1

The correct response would be:

Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.

Judicial restraint refers to the practice of limiting the powers of judges to strike down laws or policies unless they clearly violate the Constitution, thereby favoring a more passive role for the judiciary. In contrast, judicial activism involves the court taking a more proactive role by interpreting constitutional and statutory provisions in a way that may lead to striking down laws, thus engaging more directly in political and social issues.