What is the contrast between the judicial restraint and judicial activism in the Supreme Court?
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 reviews the action; judicial activism means the court does not get involved.
Judicial restraint means the court does not get involved; judicial activism means the court reviews the action.
Judicial restraint means the court takes ownership of the issues; judicial activism means the court has a lot of power.
1 answer
The second option is the correct answer. Judicial restraint refers to the approach taken by the Supreme Court where they limit their own power and defer to the decisions made by the legislative and executive branches of government. They exercise restraint in intervening or overturning laws enacted by these branches unless they are clearly unconstitutional. In contrast, judicial activism refers to the approach taken by the Court where they actively interpret the laws and the Constitution, sometimes expanding or redefining certain rights or policies, and they are not afraid to intervene or overturn laws if they are deemed unconstitutional. Judicial activism is often associated with a more liberal or progressive perspective, while judicial restraint is associated with a more conservative or strict interpretation of the Constitution.
1 answer