Discuss the doctrines of judicial restraint and judicial activism.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The doctrine of judicial restraint holds that the judiciary should be highly deferential to the judgment of legislatures. The restraint doctrine rests on a presumption that elected lawmakers are acting constitutionally and should have broad discretionary authority to decide public policy. The job of judges is to work within the confines of laws made by elected officials, seeking to discover their application to specific cases, rather than searching for new principles that essentially change these laws. Judicial restraint is based on the premise that when a court assumes policy functions that traditionally belong to elected institutions, the long-term effect is to undermine the fundamental premise of self-government-the right of the majority to choose society's policies. Judicial activism is the idea that judges should take a broad view of judicial power and involve themselves extensively in interpreting the U.S. Constitution. According to this tradition, the courts should not be overly deferential to the elected branches of government; indeed, the courts should develop new principles when judges perceive a compelling need to do so, particularly in the realm of individual rights.