Question

If a judge believes that she should defer to the decisions made by elected representatives whenever possible, she likely believes in which of the following?

a. Judicial activism
b. Stare decisis
c. Judicial restraint
d. Legal positivism

Answer 1

Judicial restraint is the belief that judges should defer to decisions made by elected representatives whenever possible.

Step-by-step explanation:

Judicial restraint is the belief that judges should defer to decisions made by elected representatives whenever possible. It is the opposite of judicial activism, which involves judges using their power to stop actions and laws made by other branches of government that they see as infringing on individual rights and liberties. The philosophy of judicial restraint focuses on a narrow interpretation of the Bill of Rights and is less likely to strike down actions or laws as unconstitutional. Stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent, is often respected by judicially restrained judges.

Answer 2

A judge who defers to the decisions of elected representatives is likely a proponent of c) judicial restraint, a philosophy that encourages judges to limit their use of power and respect legislative decisions and precedents.

Step-by-step explanation:

This judicial philosophy prioritizes deference to the legislature, hesitates to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, and typically leans towards maintaining established legal precedents, known as stare decisis. Judicial restraint is often associated with a more conservative approach to jurisprudence, where judges are less likely to engage in policymaking and are more likely to uphold the actions of other government branches unless there is a clear constitutional violation. If a judge believes that she should defer to the decisions made by elected representatives whenever possible, she likely believes in c) judicial restraint.