Judicial activism and Judicial restraint

What is the main difference between judicial restraint and judicial activism?

• Judicial restraint emphasizes limited judicial power, while judicial activism encourages an active role in interpreting the Constitution.

• Judicial restraint focuses on expanding rights, while judicial activism limits judicial power.

• Judicial restraint emerged during the civil rights movement, while judicial activism emerged in the early 20th century.

• Judicial restraint is associated with Justice Earl Warren, while judicial activism is linked to Justice Antonin Scalia.

Which Supreme Court case is an example of judicial activism?

• Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• Nixon v. United States (1993)

• Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Roe v. Wade (1973)

What is a key argument in favor of judicial restraint?

• It promotes stability and predictability in law.

• It allows for progressive change and addresses social injustices.

• It adapts the Constitution to modern contexts.

• It risks undermining democratic processes.

Which Justice is known for their originalist views and is often linked with judicial restraint?

• Justice Antonin Scalia

• Justice Earl Warren

• Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

• Justice John Roberts

How does judicial activism impact the separation of powers?

• It can blur the lines between branches by allowing courts to intervene in areas traditionally reserved for legislatures.

• It reinforces the balance of power by respecting legislative and executive authority.

• It limits the judiciary's role in protecting rights.

• It upholds existing laws and policies, limiting judicial influence on social issues.