Judicial Restraint vs Judicial Activism 2

The video discusses two opposing views on the role of appellate courts in law application: judicial restraint and judicial activism. Judicial restraint advocates for limited court intervention, leaving major legal changes to legislators. In contrast, judicial activism supports courts in adapting laws to reflect societal norms, especially when legislators are slow to act. The judiciary's role is to interpret laws in light of common societal beliefs.

Which of the following best describes judicial restraint?

• Courts should frequently update laws

• Courts should act as primary lawmakers

• Courts should ignore societal norms

• Courts should avoid expanding laws

According to judicial restraint, who should be responsible for making significant legal changes?

• The public

• The legislators

• The executive branch

• The judiciary

What is the primary focus of judicial activism?

• To leave all decisions to legislators

• To avoid making any legal changes

• To interpret laws based on societal norms

• To strictly follow statutory laws

What role do judicial activists believe the courts should play?

• To interpret laws in light of current societal beliefs

• To avoid any involvement in law interpretation

• To defer all interpretations to the executive branch

• To strictly enforce existing laws

Why do judicial activists argue that courts should interpret laws based on societal norms?

• Because legislators may not effectively represent current beliefs

• Because societal norms never change

• Because laws are always clear and unambiguous

• Because legislators always act quickly