Final answer:
In justice types, judicial activism favors expansion of liberties while judicial restraint espouses strict adherence to laws. The dual court system and justices' ideologies influence decision-making. Distributive justice and the role of the U.S. Supreme Court in policy issues reflect these dynamics.
Step-by-step explanation:
Distinguishing Justice Types by Foci
When distinguishing justice types by their focuses, we delve into the philosophical and practical approaches to legal interpretations and the role of judges in a democracy. Particularly, two distinct philosophies often guide justices: judicial activism and judicial restraint. The former is about the willingness of judges to use their power to expand individual liberties and promote justice and equality, whereas the latter encourages judges to defer policymaking to elected branches and adhere to a narrower interpretation of the Bill of Rights. In context, Plato's Theory of Justice highlights justice as both an individual virtue and a social mechanism for harmony.
Distributive Justice considers how resources, wealth, and services are fairly allocated, along with the principle of ensuring fair treatment within society. Due to the dual court system in the United States, the approach to justice can considerably vary, with state courts providing different alternatives for political access. The ideologies of justices, including personal beliefs and political attitudes, can undeniably influence their decision-making. The U.S. Supreme Court represents a blend of tradition and modernity, with a diverse panel that reflects the populace while deciding on contemporary issues.
Regarding policy issues, the judicial branch may be particularly powerful in cases involving the constitutionality of laws and the protection of civil liberties, while its power might be less evident in areas where significant discretion is granted to other branches of government.