Answer:
1. It is the job of the court to defer to the policy decisions of the executive branch.
2. It is the job of the court to consider precedent.
Explanation:
Given that Judicial restraint is a form. of a procedural technique whereby judges were advised to stop taking a decision concerning legal issues, most specifically relating to constitutional ones, except in special cases where the decision is necessary as the main resolution of a substantial dispute between adverse parties.
Hence, in this case, the two arguments that support judicial restraints are:
1. It is the job of the court to defer to the policy decisions of the executive branch.
2. It is the job of the court to consider precedent.
