Question

To advocates of judicial restraint, the Baker v. Carr decision (in which the Supreme Court ruled that election districts must be based on the "one person-one vote" principle) illustrates how the judiciary

a. violates common law principles.
b. assumes the power to make a decision that is properly made by a legislative body chosen by the people.
c. undermines the right of privacy implicit in the Constitution's guarantees of personal freedom.
d. ignores the Second Amendment.
e. ignores the First Amendment.

Answer 1

The Baker v. Carr decision, which established the "one person-one vote" principle, is seen by advocates of judicial restraint as an example of the judiciary assuming power that should belong to the legislative body. Judicial restraint argues that policy decisions should be made by the branches of government elected by the people.

Step-by-step explanation:

The Baker v. Carr decision, which established the "one person-one vote" principle for election districts, does not violate common law principles or ignore the First or Second Amendment. It also does not undermine the right of privacy implicit in the Constitution's guarantees of personal freedom. However, to advocates of judicial restraint, this decision is seen as an example of how the judiciary assumes the power to make a decision that is properly made by a legislative body chosen by the people. This is because they believe that policy decisions, such as redistricting, should be left to the legislative and executive branches.