The correct answer is: Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
Judicial restraint refers to a philosophy in which judges limit their power and defer to the decisions made by other branches of government or elected officials. It emphasizes judicial self-restraint and promotes a conservative approach, where judges avoid making decisions that could be seen as legislating from the bench.
On the other hand, judicial activism involves judges actively interpreting the Constitution and laws, often making bold decisions that go beyond the specific facts of the case. These judges are more willing to strike down or reinterpret existing laws if they are deemed unconstitutional or unfair. Judicial activism is often associated with a more liberal approach.
In summary, the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism lies in the level of involvement the court takes in reviewing actions and making decisions. Judicial restraint is a more passive approach where the court avoids involvement, while judicial activism involves an active review and interpretation of actions.
What is the contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court
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; 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.
Judicial restraint means the court does not include its own preferences; judicial activism means the court is silent on the issues of the branches.
1 answer