Question

Justice John Harlan said: "The Constitution is not a panacea (cure) for every blot upon the public welfare, not should this Court, ordained as a judicial body, be thought as a general haven for reform movement." Does this statement support judicial activism or judicial restraint? Explain

Answer 1

Justice John Harlan's statement supports the concept of judicial restraint, emphasizing a conservative and limited role for the judiciary and highlighting the ideology that judges should not extend their power into the realm of policy-making or reform movements.

Step-by-step explanation:

Justice John Harlan's statement supports the concept of judicial restraint, rather than judicial activism. Harlan recognizes that the Constitution isn't a universal remedy for all societal issues and indicates a belief that the Supreme Court should not serve as a venue for reform movements. Instead, he implies that the Court should adhere to a more constrained role, respectful of its judicial bounds and cautious about extending its powers into the realm of policy-making.

The philosophy of judicial restraint is one where judges exercise their power modestly, often deferring to the judgment of the Legislature unless a law is patently unconstitutional. It stands in contrast to judicial activism, which endorses a more dynamic and modern interpretation of the Constitution to address contemporary societal changes. Activists may be criticized for crafting policy through their decisions, whereas advocates of judicial restraint strive to maintain the original meaning of the constitutional text.