| Question Answer | When using judicial restraint, a judge will usually…. defer to the decisions of the elected branches of government | Appellate court a court that reviews cases already decided by a lower court/trial court and that may change the lower court’s decision |
|---|
What is the concept of judicial restraint?
In general, judicial restraint is the
concept of a judge not injecting his or her own preferences into legal proceedings and rulings
. Judges are said to exercise judicial restraint if they are hesitant to strike down laws that are not obviously unconstitutional.
When using a precedent a judge will quizlet?
How does precedent work? When a
case comes to court the judge will examine the facts of this case and check to see if there are any earlier cases with similar facts
. If there is an earlier case, the judge will use the decision from the earlier case as the law to be applied to the new case.
What is judicial restraint quizlet?
-Judicial restraint: is
a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power
. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate.
When was judicial restraint used?
The Supreme Court’s acquiescence to the expanded governmental authority of the New Deal, after initial opposition, is one example of judicial restraint. The Court’s acceptance of racial segregation in the
1896
case of Plessy v. Ferguson is another.
What court cases are examples of judicial restraint?
Examples of cases where the Supreme Court favored judicial restraint include
Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu v. United States
. In Korematsu, the court upheld race-based discrimination, refusing to interfere with legislative decisions unless they explicitly violated the Constitution.
What are examples of judicial activism?
- Brown v. Board of Education – 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.
- Roe v. …
- Bush v. …
- Citizens United v. …
- Hollingsworth v. …
- Obergefell v. …
- Janus v. …
- Department of Homeland Security v.
What would be acceptable grounds for reversing an existing precedent?
Based on what you read, what do you think would be acceptable grounds for reversing an existing precedent? Answers will vary, but will likely include: It has become indefensible over time. …
The precedent has been eroded by subsequent decisions, etc.
How are legal precedents used in the judicial system?
Precedents are used
when a court decision in an earlier case has similar facts and laws to a dispute currently before a court
. Precedent will ordinarily govern the decision of a later similar case unless a party can show that it was wrongly decided or that it differed in some significant way.
What are legal decisions made by judges in court cases called?
These past decisions are called “
case law”, or precedent
. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning “let the decision stand”—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions.
What are the similarities and differences of judicial restraint and judicial activism?
Judicial activism is the assertion (or, sometimes, the unjustified assertion) of the power of judicial review to set aside government acts.
Judicial restraint is the refusal to strike down such acts, leaving the issue to ordinary politics
.
What is an example of judicial activism quizlet?
The police tap the phone of a suspected criminal without a warrant. Which of the following is an example of judicial activism?
A judge always rules in favor of the right to privacy, regardless of previous rulings.
What is the difference between judicial restraint and judicial activism quizlet?
One difference is that the activist approach applies the Constitution to modern day circumstances. Another difference is that the judicial restraint approach is
when the rules are strictly followed by the Constitution
. In the activist approach, the rules of the Constitution aren’t as strict.
Why is judicial activism good?
Judicial activism is
highly effective for bringing forth social reforms
. Unlike the legislature, the judiciary is more exposed to the problems in society through the cases it hears. So it can take just decisions to address such problems.
Why do supporters of judicial restraint argue that judges are immune to public opinion?
The Constitution is often loosely interpreted to meet the issues of the present. … Supporters of judicial restraint point out that appointed judges are immune to public opinion, and if they abandon their role as careful and cautious interpreters of the Constitution, they
become unelected legislators
.
Why is it important to our justice system to have both judicial restraint and judicial activism?
Judicial activism
interprets the Constitution to be in favor of contemporary values
. … Judicial restraint limits the powers of judges to strike down a law, opines that the court should uphold all acts and laws of Congress and legislatures unless they oppose the United States Constitution.
