Question
What is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court?(1 point)
Responses
Judicial restraint means the court takes ownership of the issues; judicial activism means the court has a lot of power.
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 reviews the action; judicial activism means the court does not get involved.
Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
Responses
Judicial restraint means the court takes ownership of the issues; judicial activism means the court has a lot of power.
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 reviews the action; judicial activism means the court does not get involved.
Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
Answers
GPT-4o mini
The correct contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism is:
**Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.**
Judicial restraint typically refers to the philosophy that judges should limit the exercise of their own power and defer to the elected branches of government, while judicial activism refers to a more interventionist approach where courts take an active role in changing laws or policies, typically by interpreting the Constitution or laws broadly.
**Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.**
Judicial restraint typically refers to the philosophy that judges should limit the exercise of their own power and defer to the elected branches of government, while judicial activism refers to a more interventionist approach where courts take an active role in changing laws or policies, typically by interpreting the Constitution or laws broadly.