Final answer:
Judicial restraint is a philosophy advocating for minimal judicial intervention, whereas judicial activism involves a proactive approach to law interpretation typically to extend rights or address social issues. The Warren Court, known for landmark decisions like Brown v. Board of Education, exemplifies judicial activism.
Step-by-step explanation:
Judicial Restraint vs. Judicial Activism
Judicial restraint is a philosophy where judges limit the exercise of their power, avoiding activism in policy-making and showing deference to the policymaking prerogative of the other branches of government. They emphasize adherence to precedent (stare decisis) and are cautious not to strike down legislation unless it is clearly unconstitutional.
Judicial activism, on the other hand, describes judges who interpret the Constitution in a more expansive and sometimes innovative way, often to address social issues and extend individual rights. It can involve courts substituting their policy views for those of other branches, or broadly interpreting vague areas of the law in ways that reflect contemporary values.
An example of judicial activism would be the Warren Court, which made numerous landmark decisions, including Brown v. Board of Education, which ended racial segregation in schools. The Court's action in this case reflected a broad interpretation of constitutional principles like equal protection to address pressing social issues, an approach often equated with judicial activism.
Judicial Philosophy and the Warren Court
The Warren Court is frequently highlighted as an exemplar of judicial activism due to its influential rulings that advanced civil rights and liberties. This activism came through decisions that at times went beyond the established norms of their era to address racial inequality, and other pressing societal concerns, thus illustrating a willingness to use judicial power to effect significant changes in policy when other branches of government were reluctant to do so.