Discuss judicial activism and judicial restraint, and their relationships with liberalism and conservatism.
What will be an ideal response?
The ideal answer should include:
1. Judicial restraint is the idea that the Supreme Court should not impose its views on the other branches of government or on the states unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution. Judicial restraint calls for a passive role in which the Court lets the elected branches of government lead the way in setting controversial policies.
2. Judicial activism takes the approach that the Supreme Court should be a creative partner with the legislative and executive branches in shaping government policy. Judicial activists seek to apply the Court's authority to solving economic and political problems ignored by other parts of the government.
3. Judicial activism versus restraint should not be confused with liberal versus conservative. Over the years, activist and restraint justices alike have taken both liberal and conservative positions on various issues.
4. In recent times, judicial restraint and conservatism have overlapped. Conservative jurists, under the banner of strict constructionism, have viewed modern courts as stretching the Constitution for liberal ends, and thereby ignoring the intentions of the framers.
You might also like to view...
Local governments in most states have the discretion to tax the income of their residents
Indicate whether this statement is true or false.
Define a Pareto optimal move. Discuss the limitations of this concept.
What will be an ideal response?
Because public opinion can change from day to day and even from hour to hour, polls are really only __________ of opinion at a particular point in time
Answer:
As America has grown, so have/has ______.
A. the powers of the states relative to the federal government B. our reliance on local rather than national policy C. the protections provided to marginalized groups D. our expectations of what the government will do for us