Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

Front

What is the role of the judicial branch?

Back

to interpret laws

Front

What is judicial activism?

Back

the belief that justices should defend rights and liberties even if they're not explicitly stated in the Constitution

Front

Idea that the Supreme Court has the ability to determine if the actions of government or government officials is constitutional

Back

judicial review

Front

Which of the following statements best explains how judicial activism influences decisions made by individual justices when deciding cases heard by the Court? Justices are influenced by the social effects the decision might have on the public, Justices are more likely to defer to previous Supreme Court decisions, Justices are influenced by the public opinion on a case rather than constitutional interpretation, Justices are less likely to strike down laws and policies as unconstitutional

Back

Justices are influenced by the social effects the decision might have on the public

Front

The Supreme Court ruled in Baker v. Carr (1962) the idea of "one person, one vote" because: Representatives were not redistricting their states even after Census results showed a shift in population from rural to urban areas.

Back

Representatives were not redistricting their states even after Census results showed a shift in population from rural to urban areas.

Front

Judicial philosophy in which justices create and influence law from the bench

Back

judicial activism

Front

The reluctance to interpret the law and to hesitate to overturn existing precedent unless it is obviously unconstitutional is called what?

Back

judicial restraint

Front

The practice of interpreting the Constitution in light of the norms and values of present day society is referred to as

Back

judicial activism

Front

Philosophy proposing that judges should interpret the Constitution to reflect what the framers intended and what its words literally say.

Back

judicial restraint