Judicial restraint is the political theory that says courts shouldn't, unless absolutely required, issue rulings that broaden or alter the character of existing laws.
<h3>Justiciable constraint is exercised by whom?</h3>
A jurist (judge or justice) who upholds a philosophy of restraint can be described as one who considers democracy to have intrinsic, rather than just instrumental, value, that the judiciary is indeed the least powerful of the three branches of government, and who values stability and predictability in the lawmaking process.
<h3>Why do advocates of judicial restraint assert that judges are impervious to public sentiment?</h3>
They are freed from the strain of the outer world of public opinion since they do not have to worry about being reelected. In the end, the majority may not always be correct. The fact that the Founders established appointed judges and elected legislators is not by coincidence.
Learn more about Judicial restraint: brainly.com/question/29545866
#SPJ4
I support whatever you choose to put your answer as lol
When the writers of the Constitution were initially deciding what powers and responsibilities the executive branch—headed by the president—would have, they were heavily influenced by their experience with the British government under King George III. Having seen how the king and other European monarchs tended to abuse their powers, the designers of the Constitution wanted to place strict limits on the power that the president would have. At the same time, they wanted to give the president enough power to conduct foreign policy and to run the federal government efficiently without being hampered by the squabbling of legislators from individual states. In other words, the Framers wanted to design an executive office that would provide effective and coherent leadership but that could never become a tyranny.
Read more: Executive Branch - The Executive Branch And The Constitution - President, Power, Powers, and Framers - JRank Articles https://law.jrank.org/pages/6652/Executive-Branch-Executive-Branch-Constitution.html#ixzz6rIgGN7y3
Answer:
THE HARD R THE HARD R THE HARD R THE HARD R THE HARD R THE HARD R THE HARD R
Explanation:
HOPE THIS HELPS IF IT IS WHAT I REALLY THINK IT WAS I'LL DO THAT TOO
Answer: yes
explanation: if she was in so much pain, then she could’ve killed herself instead. Since it didn’t state if the man asked for her permission to kill her, then it was probably his choice
