Define judicial activism and judicial restraint. Explain the reasons that judges would exercise activism or restraint, and tell how Plessy v.
Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education were examples of each.
(4 points)
Judicial activism refers to when judges go beyond interpreting the law and instead actively make policy decisions or change social norms through their legal rulings. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, is when judges limit their rulings to strictly interpreting the law and deferring to the decisions of elected officials or the legislature.
Judges may choose to exercise activism when they believe that the law is outdated or unjust and needs to be changed in order to uphold rights and values. They may also feel a responsibility to address social issues or conflicts in society through their rulings. On the other hand, judges may practice restraint when they believe that it is not their role to make policy decisions or changes in the law, and they want to avoid overstepping their authority.
In the case of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court exhibited judicial restraint by upholding the constitutionality of racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine, despite the fact that it perpetuated racial discrimination and inequality. This decision deferred to the existing laws and social norms, rather than challenging them.
In contrast, the case of Brown v. Board of Education (1954) demonstrated judicial activism, as the Supreme Court overturned the precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson and declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional. The Court recognized the need for social change and justice, and actively challenged the existing laws and societal norms. This decision was a clear example of judges exercising activism to address a pressing social issue and uphold constitutional rights.
Shorter like way shorter
Judicial activism is when judges make policy decisions or change social norms through their rulings, while judicial restraint is when judges strictly interpret the law and defer to elected officials.
Judges may choose activism to uphold rights or address social issues, while they may practice restraint to avoid overstepping their authority.
Plessy v. Ferguson was an example of judicial restraint, as the Court upheld racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court showed judicial activism by overturning Plessy and declaring segregation unconstitutional to address social injustice.