Question

Essay

250-500

What is the difference between judicial restraint and Judicial activism? If you were a judge, which philosophy would you subscribe to and why?

Answer 1

Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint are two opposite terms. These two approaches of law are a check against the fradulent acts of the govt. body or any other institutions. Judicial activism interprets the constitution to advocate existing values. In judicial activism judges use their powers to rectify any injustice . Also in Judicial activism, the judges play a great role, especially in the matter of protection of civil rights, rights of the individual and public morality. Judicial activism provides the court the power to govern certain judgements. For exa, the supreme court or an appelate court can change existing decisions if they are wrong.

Judicial Restraint is a restrictive approach which limits the powers of judges to strike down a law. In judicial restraint, the court should uphold all acts & laws of congress & legislatures unless they are against the US constitution. In judicial system if the court has to face a situation involving an interpretation of the constitution, the courts will generally postpone the prior interpretations of the constitution by the courts or congress. Judicial restraint preserves a balance among the three branches of govt. i.e., judiciary,executive & legislative. In this case, existing law is reviewed by the judges & court rather than modifying it.

I will subscribe to judicial restraint, because it limits the powers of judges to strike down a law. Sometimes courts declare a law illegal due to some unavoidable reasons. It may happens that judges may not able to decide at a certain point where they can do harm either by upholding or by striking down a law. These harms may weight the shoulder of powerless minorities. So judicial restraint by limiting the power of judges better protects the rights of the individuals.