Which of the following develops a logical argument about how judicial restraint supports the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision?(1 point) Responses Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision invalidated the separate but equal doctrine. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision invalidated the separate but equal doctrine. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the actions of the legislative and judicial branches. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the actions of the legislative and judicial branches. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the Supreme Court did not challenge the actions of the executive or legislative branches. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the Supreme Court did not challenge the actions of the executive or legislative branches. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the legislative intent of the equal protections clause.

Question

Which of the following develops a logical argument about how judicial restraint supports the Supreme Court’s Plessy v. Ferguson decision?(1 point) Responses Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision invalidated the separate but equal doctrine. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision invalidated the separate but equal doctrine. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the actions of the legislative and judicial branches. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the actions of the legislative and judicial branches. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the Supreme Court did not challenge the actions of the executive or legislative branches. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the Supreme Court did not challenge the actions of the executive or legislative branches. Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the legislative intent of the equal protections clause.

Answer 1

Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the legislative intent of the equal protections clause.

Answer 2

The response that develops a logical argument about how judicial restraint supports the Supreme Court's Plessy v. Ferguson decision is: "Judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision because the decision challenged the legislative intent of the equal protections clause."

Answer 3

To develop a logical argument about how judicial restraint supports the Supreme Court's Plessy v. Ferguson decision, we need to understand the concept of judicial restraint and analyze its connection to the case.

Judicial restraint refers to the philosophy that judges should interpret and apply the law within the boundaries set by the Constitution and established legal precedents, without making significant changes or interfering with the other branches of government. It promotes the idea that the judiciary should exercise self-restraint and deference to the decisions made by elected officials and the democratic process.

In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation laws through the "separate but equal" doctrine. This doctrine allowed separate public facilities for white and non-white individuals as long as the facilities were considered equal in quality. The Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson came at a time when racial segregation was widely practiced in many aspects of American society.

One of the arguments suggesting that judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision is that it invalidated the separate but equal doctrine. By affirming the constitutionality of racial segregation laws, the Court can be seen as exercising restraint by not overstepping its boundaries to challenge the actions of the legislative branch.

Another argument supporting this claim is that the decision did not challenge the actions of the executive or legislative branches, displaying a form of self-restraint. In this case, the Court did not interfere with the decisions made by the other branches of government and respected their authority in enacting and enforcing segregation laws.

However, it is important to note that Plessy v. Ferguson has been widely criticized and eventually overturned by the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education, which declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The concept of judicial restraint can be debated in the context of this particular case, as some argue that the Court's decision failed to protect equal rights and allowed for institutionalized racism to persist.

In conclusion, the argument that judicial restraint supports the Plessy v. Ferguson decision relies on the Court's affirmation of the legality of racial segregation laws, without challenging the actions of the legislative or executive branches. However, it is essential to understand the broader historical context and subsequent developments in constitutional law that have reshaped the understanding of equal protection under the law.