judicial restraint
For more information, see Related Questions, below.
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.
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.
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 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.
Judicial Activism
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.
The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial activism versus. Versus strict constructionism, and living document versus original intent.
To hell with Pakistan and you...
judicial activism!
for its period of Judicial Activism
Judicial activism was used because the Court ruled that the school policy prohibiting the students from wearing the arm bands to protest symbolically the Vietnam War violated the students' free speech rights. By overturning a policy of the government (the public school's policy), the Court exercised judicial activism.
A person who favors judicial activism is one who prefers a decision to be made via a personal opinion, rather than focusing on the law. A person who does this is considered unlawful or a federalist.