0
Judicial restraint is the theory that judges should limit their exercise of power and strike down laws only when they are obviously unconstitutional, and always follow precedents set by older courts. Judicial activism is the opposite view, and is sometimes meant to imply politically motivated judicial decisions.
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Jordan
Steve
LaoAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
How does judicial activism and judicial restraint affect the separation of powers?
Judicial activism weakens the separation of powers by involving the Court in what are traditionally executive and legislative functions. Judicial restraint reinforces separation of powers.
Did the Warren Court believe in judicial activism or judicial restraint?
The Warren Court, which was active from 1953 until Chief Justice Earl Warren retired in 1969, is often accused of judicial activism for its many decisions supporting African-Americans' civil rights. Whether they believed they were judicial activists or not is unknown.
What is The critical thing to remember about such terms as activism and restraint?
The critical thing to remember about such terms as activism and restraint is that they are (
Do you think an advocate of judicial restraint would support a narrow interpretation of the constitution or a broad interpretation?
An advocate of judicial restrain would support a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, one that adhered closely to the language of the document and his or her belief about the Framers' original intent. Interpretive ideologies such as textualism, "strict constructionism," and originalism are most often associated with judicial restraint. Contextualism, which attempts to infer intent from content, may also result in judicial restraint; however, the degree of subjectivity implicit in this method can also lend itself to judicial activism.
The idea that judges should use their power broadly to further justice based ontheir own personal views or agenda is called?
judicial activism!
