The definition of judicial restraint can be found on page 539 of the Edwards book, that being a judicial philosophy in which judges play minimal policymaking roles, leaving that duty strictly to the legislatures. Many scholars and judges favor a policy of judicial restraint. These observers stress that federal courts are the least democratic branch of government and question the qualifications of judges for making policy decisions and balancing interests. Advocates of judicial restraint believe that decisions such as those on abortion and prayer in public schools go well beyond the "referee" role they say is appropriate for courts in a democracy.
As said on page 539 of the Edwards textbook, judicial activism is "a judicial philosophy in which judges make bold policy decision, even charting new constitutional ground". With judicial activism the courts can declare something constitutional, allowing more to happen in today's society. Judicial activism also allows the courts to correct pressing needs of society, including those unmet by majoritarian politics.
I think judges should follow a mixture of both judicial activism and restraint, because judges should be able to decide whether or not something is constitutional and make decisions based on today's society, and they should leave most policy making to legislatures, with some input.
I could not agree more with Jessica. It is important for judges to understand the full meaning of the law yet also be able to look at it not simply as black and white text. It's important to see the world is changing and tolerance and acceptance will lead to greatness. I suppose if I had to pick one though, I believe a judge should express judicial activism.
The definition of judicial restraint can be found on page 539 of the Edwards book, that being a judicial philosophy in which judges play minimal policymaking roles, leaving that duty strictly to the legislatures. Many scholars and judges favor a policy of judicial restraint. These observers stress that federal courts are the least democratic branch of government and question the qualifications of judges for making policy decisions and balancing interests. Advocates of judicial restraint believe that decisions such as those on abortion and prayer in public schools go well beyond the "referee" role they say is appropriate for courts in a democracy.
ReplyDeleteAs said on page 539 of the Edwards textbook, judicial activism is "a judicial philosophy in which judges make bold policy decision, even charting new constitutional ground". With judicial activism the courts can declare something constitutional, allowing more to happen in today's society. Judicial activism also allows the courts to correct pressing needs of society, including those unmet by majoritarian politics.
ReplyDeleteI think judges should follow a mixture of both judicial activism and restraint, because judges should be able to decide whether or not something is constitutional and make decisions based on today's society, and they should leave most policy making to legislatures, with some input.
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more with Jessica. It is important for judges to understand the full meaning of the law yet also be able to look at it not simply as black and white text. It's important to see the world is changing and tolerance and acceptance will lead to greatness. I suppose if I had to pick one though, I believe a judge should express judicial activism.
ReplyDelete