Want this question answered?
This philosophy is known as judicial restraint or strict constructionism. It argues that judges should limit their interpretation of the Constitution to its text and original intent, intervening in the actions of the elected branches only when there is a clear violation of these principles.
Judicial restraint
Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that says that judges should hesitate to strike down a law unless it is obviously unconstitutional. This encourages judges to limit their own powers.
the doctrine of judicial restrain holds that judges should generally defer to precedent and to decisions made by legislature
Judicial restraint is the philosophy that judges and justices should defer to written legislation whenever possible, if it is not in conflict with the Constitution. A justice who uses judicial restraint tends to take a narrower view of the Constitution and does not attempt to broaden the definition of Amendments to fit a particular social or political agenda. The opposite of judicial restraint is judicial activism. For more information on the debate between judicial activism and judicial restrain, see Related Links, below.
A governmnent run by judges. If you are askling about the government of the US, the question is mis-worded, and you should be asking about the Judicial BRANCH of government.
A governmnent run by judges. If you are askling about the government of the US, the question is mis-worded, and you should be asking about the Judicial BRANCH of government.
judicial activist
judicial activism!
Judicial restraint. The opposite of judicial restraint is judicial activism.For more information about the controversy over judicial activism and judicial restraint, see Related Questions, below.
Judicial restraint P.S. A.P. government really sucks doesnt it?
Judges are supposed to be politically impartial and are supposed to enforce the law. The law doesn't have a political party or agenda, so the neither should the judges.