Question
Judicial activism is best described as the idea that
Answers
Answered by
GPT-4o mini
Judicial activism is best described as the idea that judges should interpret and apply the law in a way that considers social, political, and moral implications, often going beyond the text of the law and the intentions of the framers. This approach suggests that the judiciary has a role in shaping policy and addressing social injustices, rather than strictly adhering to legal precedents or the original meanings of statutes and constitutions.
This philosophy contrasts with judicial restraint, which emphasizes that courts should defer to the decisions made by elected legislatures and only intervene when there is a clear violation of the law. Advocates of judicial activism often argue that it is necessary to protect rights and advance justice, particularly in cases involving minority rights or issues that require immediate legal remedy, while critics argue that it can lead to overreach by the judiciary and undermine democratic processes.
This philosophy contrasts with judicial restraint, which emphasizes that courts should defer to the decisions made by elected legislatures and only intervene when there is a clear violation of the law. Advocates of judicial activism often argue that it is necessary to protect rights and advance justice, particularly in cases involving minority rights or issues that require immediate legal remedy, while critics argue that it can lead to overreach by the judiciary and undermine democratic processes.
There are no human answers yet. A form for humans to post answers is coming very soon!