Judicial Activism and Restraint Concepts

The video discusses judicial activism and restraint, focusing on the judiciary's role in checking other branches of government. It introduces the concepts of judicial activism, where judges may incorporate personal views into rulings, and judicial restraint, where judges strictly interpret the law. The Baker v. Carr case is examined, highlighting its impact on judicial power and the debate between activism and restraint. The video includes opinions from justices, illustrating differing views on the judiciary's role in political matters.

What is the primary function of the judicial branch as discussed in the video?

• To enforce laws

• To manage state budgets

• To create new laws

• To check the executive and legislative branches

Who introduced the term 'judicial activism'?

• Ruth Bader Ginsburg

• Oliver Wendell Holmes

• John Marshall

• Arthur Schlesinger

What does judicial activism imply about judges?

• They focus only on criminal cases

• They avoid controversial cases

• They incorporate personal views in rulings

• They strictly follow the constitution

What does the term 'legislating from the bench' imply?

• Judges are creating laws through their rulings

• Judges are strictly interpreting the constitution

• Judges are avoiding controversial cases

• Judges are focusing on criminal law

What is the main characteristic of judicial restraint?

• Judges prioritize public opinion

• Judges focus on international law

• Judges limit their power

• Judges create new laws

What was the central issue in the Baker v. Carr case?

• Freedom of speech

• Legislative districting and equal protection

• Taxation without representation

• Voting rights for women

What did the Supreme Court decide in Baker v. Carr?

• The courts have no jurisdiction over districting

• Baker's argument was invalid

• The courts have jurisdiction over legislative districting

• Carr was correct in his actions

What was Justice Douglas's stance in his concurring opinion?

• Courts should avoid political cases

• Courts have jurisdiction over voting rights issues

• Courts should focus on criminal law

• Courts should not intervene in state matters

What did Justice Frankfurter argue in his dissenting opinion?

• The court should have more power than the executive

• The court should engage in political settlements

• The court should focus on international law

• The court's credibility depends on staying out of politics

What was a significant outcome of the Baker v. Carr decision?

• It limited the power of the judiciary

• It expanded judicial power over legislative duties

• It had no impact on future cases

• It was overturned shortly after