Answer: judicial restraint
Explanation:
Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate. Judicial restraint is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism. In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicially restrained judges respect stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent handed down by past judges
The correct answer to this open question is the following.
What region do you suggest will be given priority in the vaccination program? Why?
Unfortunately, you do not specify if you are referring to the United States or the world.
If you are talking about the world, I would like to suggest that the region could be developing countries in Asia, Africa, India, or Latin America, because their citizens are poor and by the millions. So the spread of the disease could be more quickly and most of those countries do not have the kind of public health infrastructure to help their citizens. And this could affect the entire world.
If you are talking about the United States, then I would recommend vaccination for the larger urban areas and cities such as New York, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, or Los Angeles, because these are large cities overpopulated that have more risk to spread the disease due to the number of people that live and work there.
