Difference Between Similar Terms and Objects

Difference Between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint

Judicial Activism vs Judicial Restraint

Judicial activism and judicial restraint are true opposite approaches. Judicial activism and judicial restraint, which are very relevant in the United States, are related to the judicial system of a country, and they are a check against the fraudulent use of powers of the government or any constitutional body.

Judicial activism is the interpretation of the Constitution to advocate contemporary values and conditions. On the other hand, judicial restraint is limiting the powers of the judges to strike down a law.

In judicial restraint, the court should uphold all acts of the Congress and the state legislatures unless they are violating the Constitution of the country. In judicial restraint, the courts generally defer to interpretations of the Constitution by the Congress or any other constitutional body.

In the matter of judicial activism, the judges are required to use their power to correct any injustice especially when the other constitutional bodies are not acting. This means that judicial activism has a great role in formulating social policies on issues like protection of rights of an individual, civil rights, public morality, and political unfairness.

Judicial restraint and judicial activism have different goals. Judicial restraint helps in preserving a balance among the three branches of government; judiciary, executive, and legislative. In this case, the judges and the court encourage reviewing an existing law rather than modifying the existing law. When talking about the goals or powers of judicial activism, it gives the power to overrule certain acts or judgments. For example, the Supreme Court or an appelate court can reverse some previous decisions if they were faulty. This judicial system also acts as checks and balances and prevents the three branches of government; judiciary, executive and legislative from becoming powerful.

Summary:

1.Judicial activism is the interpretation of the Constitution to advocate contemporary values and conditions. Judicial restraint is limiting the powers of the judges to strike down a law.
2.In judicial restraint, the court should uphold all acts of the Congress and the state legislatures unless they are violating the Constitution of the country.
3.In the matter of judicial activism, the judges are required to use their power to correct any injustice especially when the other constitutional bodies are not acting.
4.Judicial activism has a great role in formulating social policies on issues like protection of rights of an individual, civil rights, public morality, and political unfairness.
5.When talking about the goals or powers of judicial activism, it gives the power to overrule certain acts or judgments. For example, the Supreme Court or an appelate court can reverse some previous decisions if they were faulty.


Search DifferenceBetween.net :

Custom Search


Help us improve. Rate this post! 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (3 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...

Email This Post Email This Post : If you like this article or our site. Please spread the word. Share it with your friends/family.



Leave a Response

Please note: comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.

Articles on DifferenceBetween.net are general information, and are not intended to substitute for professional advice. The information is "AS IS", "WITH ALL FAULTS". User assumes all risk of use, damage, or injury. You agree that we have no liability for any damages.


See more about :
Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Finder