Question

What are your view on judicial activism vs restraint?

Answer 1

Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two different approaches to constitutional interpretation and the role of the judiciary, with the former being more focused on expanding individual rights and liberties, and the latter being more focused on deferring to elected branches of government and respecting precedent.

Step-by-step explanation:

Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two different approaches to constitutional interpretation and the role of the judiciary. Judicial activism refers to judges who take an active role in shaping and interpreting the law, often expanding individual rights and liberties. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, refers to judges who defer to the elected branches of government and focus on a narrow interpretation of the Constitution, respecting precedent and limiting their own power. These approaches can be seen as different ways of balancing the power of the judiciary with the other branches of government.

Answer 2

At most level, judicial activism refers to a theory of judgment that takes into account the spirit of the law and the changing times, while judicial restraint relies on a strict interpretation of the law and the importance of legal precedent.