Explain the difference between judicial restraint and judical activism?

2 answers:

7 0

Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should creatively (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges' own visions regarding the needs of contemporary society. Judicial activism believes that judges assume a role as independent policy makers or independent "trustees" on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and laws. The concept of judicial activism is the polar opposite of judicial restraint.

Judicial restraint refers to the doctrine that judges' own philosophies or policy preferences should not be injected into the law and should whenever reasonably possible construe the law so as to avoid second guessing the policy decisions made by other governmental institutions such as Congress, the President and state legislatures. This view is based on the concept that judges have no popular mandate to act as policy makers and should defer to the decisions of the elected "political" branches of the Federal government and of the states in matters of policy making so long as these policymakers stay within the limits of their powers as defined by the US Constitution and the constitutions of the several states.

photoshop1234 [79]3 years ago

5 0

Judicial restraint limits the powers of judges to strike down a law. As opposed to the progressiveness of judicial activism, judicial restraint opines that the courts should uphold all acts and laws of Congress and legislatures unless they oppose the United States Constitution.

You might be interested in

Ward can be defined as a

Marat540 [252]

The first answer is C "<span>unit into which a city is divided for city council elections"
and the second answer is also C "Democrats and Republicans"

</span>

6 0

3 years ago

Allison is having a great deal of difficulty in her statistics class. She goes to her teacher to discuss ways in which she can i

stealth61 [152]

Answer:

erroneus

Explanation:

7 0

2 years ago

Keona holds unrealistically high standards about herself and her ability to speak in public. She constantly judges herself as po

lara [203]

Answer:

Cognitive theory

Explanation:

According to cognitive theory, Individuals with social anxiety disorder shift their attention towards their anxiety when confronted with challenging social situations, view themselves as inadequate enough to confront societal pressure, find excuse to avoid taking up such duties that will put them in the light. Their coping mechanism include playing safe by giving excuse of their inadequacies or a clear refusal.

Keona made excuses or refuses any chance for her to speak in public, so the cognitive theory clearly define her social disorder.

7 0

2 years ago

Which approach - assimilation, melting pot, fusion and/or pluralism - matches most closely to the new definition of race in cont

Romashka-Z-Leto [24]

I believe the answer you are looking for is:

"In the old days of assimilation, foreigners felt the required need to become as American as possible. America is no longer asking or demanding immigrants to abandon their birth culture."

Hope this helps!!

(Brainliest)

7 0

2 years ago

For whom or what morality apply?

Deffense [45]

Question :

For whom or what morality apply?

Answer:

concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Hope This Helps :)

4 0

2 years ago