What is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court?(1 point)
Responses
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 takes ownership of the issues; judicial activism means the court has a lot of power.
Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
3 answers
Judicial restraint means that the court is more cautious and limits its power by deferring to the decisions made by the other branches of government, such as the legislative and executive branches. It focuses on interpreting the law as written and avoids making policy decisions. On the other hand, judicial activism refers to a more proactive approach by the court, where it actively involves itself in shaping and interpreting the law, even when it may go beyond the decisions of the other branches. It is more willing to make policy decisions and protect individual rights, even if it requires overruling or overturning existing laws.
what is the answer
The correct answer is:
Judicial restraint means the court is more cautious and limits its power by deferring to the decisions made by the other branches of government. Judicial activism refers to a more proactive approach where the court actively involves itself in shaping and interpreting the law, even when it may go beyond the decisions of the other branches.
Judicial restraint means the court is more cautious and limits its power by deferring to the decisions made by the other branches of government. Judicial activism refers to a more proactive approach where the court actively involves itself in shaping and interpreting the law, even when it may go beyond the decisions of the other branches.
1 answer