Judicial Restraint vs Judicial Activism

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.

What are the diametric views regarding the role of appellate courts in the application of law?

How does common law contribute to statutory law according to the text?

What is the belief of judicial restraint advocates regarding the authority of appellate courts?

According to judicial activists, what is the role of the court in relation to legislators?

In what way should the judiciary interpret the law according to the text?