Define the doctrines of judicial activism and judicial restraint.
What will be an ideal response?
Judicial activism is the view that the courts should be lawmaking, policymaking bodies. Proponents of judicial activism believe that, when possible, judges should correct injustices in our legal system by interpreting the law in a way that corrects a social wrong. Judicial restraint is the view that the courts should reject any active lawmaking functions and stick to judicial interpretations of the past. Those agreeing with this latter point of view do not condone judges taking an active role in changing policy, unless such a change naturally occurs when strictly interpreting the law; they believe judges are mere “referees” in our legal system.
You might also like to view...
The Constitutional Court provides a check on
A. excesses of government. B. individual rights. C. excesses of the European Parliament.. D. economic and business rights.
Ways in which Texas has historically discriminated against minorities in elections include __________
a. district-based elections for the state legislature b. open primary elections c. restrictive voter registration laws d. universal suffrage
In a __________ system, local and regional governments derive authority from the national government
a. unitary b. bicameral c. confederate d. federal
During general debate on the House floor, which of the following is true?
a. Members engage in extensive back-and-forth exchanges. b. The majority party receives twice as much time to present its case. c. Members largely present pre-prepared statements. d. Amendments are voted on.