What is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court?

Question

Judicial restraint means the court reviews the action judicial activism means the court does not get involved.
Judicial restraint means the court takes ownership of the issues, traditional magnetism means the core has a lot of power
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 mean the court is silent on the issues of the branches

Answer 1

The correct contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court is as follows:

Judicial restraint refers to a philosophy in which the court does not actively involve itself in political or policy matters unless necessary. It involves a more conservative approach, where judges interpret the law narrowly and defer to the elected branches of government.

On the other hand, judicial activism is a philosophy in which the court actively engages in shaping public policy and constitutional interpretation. It involves a more liberal approach, where judges interpret the law broadly and may sometimes override the decisions of elected branches to protect individual rights or promote social justice.

Overall, judicial restraint emphasizes limited judicial intervention and deferring to the decisions of democratically elected officials, while judicial activism advocates for a more active and interventionist role for the court in shaping policy and protecting individual rights.