Judicial restraint means that the court exercises self-restraint and limits its own power by deferring to the other branches of government and respecting their decisions. It involves refraining from making broad or controversial rulings and instead focusing on interpreting the law strictly as written.
On the other hand, judicial activism refers to a more assertive approach where the court actively engages in shaping public policy and making broad interpretations of the Constitution. It involves the court taking a more proactive role in addressing societal issues and advancing certain ideologies, even if it means overruling or disregarding previous decisions or legislative actions.
In summary, the main contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism lies in the level of involvement and assertiveness of the court in interpreting and influencing the law. Judicial restraint involves a more limited role for the court, while judicial activism involves a more active and powerful role for the court in shaping public policy.
What is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court?(1 point)
Responses
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 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 takes ownership of the issues; judicial activism means the court has a lot of power.
1 answer
3 answers