Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint
Judicial Activism is when judges make decisions that are based on their personal beliefs or opinions, even if those decisions change existing laws or policies. This means they take an active role in shaping laws and can sometimes expand the rights of individuals or groups.
Judicial Restraint is when judges stick closely to existing laws and the Constitution. They usually avoid making big changes and prefer to let elected lawmakers (like Congress) make the important decisions. This approach means they respect the choices made by other branches of government.
Reasons for Activism or Restraint
Judges may choose activism because they believe that the laws need to change to reflect current social values or to protect people's rights. They might feel it is important to take a stand on issues that affect many people's lives.
On the other hand, judges might choose restraint because they think it's not their job to change laws. They believe in following the law as it is written and allowing the people, through their elected representatives, to make changes. They may also feel that changing laws through the courts can create confusion or instability.
Examples: Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) is an example of judicial restraint. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that segregation (separating people based on race) was okay as long as the facilities were "separate but equal." The judges did not want to change the status quo and believed that it was up to lawmakers to decide how to handle segregation. This decision allowed racism and discrimination to continue for many years.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is an example of judicial activism. In this case, the Supreme Court decided that separating children in schools based on race was wrong and not equal. The judges took a bold step to change the law because they believed that segregation hurt children and went against the principles of equality. This decision helped end legal segregation in schools and was a major step forward in the civil rights movement.
In summary, judicial activism leads to changes in laws based on judges' beliefs, while judicial restraint is about following existing laws closely. Plessy v. Ferguson showed restraint by upholding segregation, while Brown v. Board of Education showed activism by ending it.