Helpp Editing this Paragraph...Please!?

Question

I would take part in judicial restraint if I were a Supreme Court justice because I have faith in the Constitution. It was made by our founding fathers and has been known to be our country’s foundation. Another reason is because I think that the Constitution has been amended and interpreted consistently enough to make it somewhat recent and applicable to modern issues and court cases. In addition, with justices that take place in judicial activism, our country and its court system would be chaos. An example would be court cases with drivers who were “drunk” and driving. With justices supporting activism, one may end up being in jail for life, another may end up getting his license temporarily taken away but get to keep his car, and the last may end up losing both his license and car for life.

[need help editing this]

[ the rest iss heree..thanks =]!! ]

As you can see, such a situation would be very unfair and unorganized because what was done in the past and what was considered in the past to be a “light” crime may not end up to be such a “light” crime the next time it was committed.

Answer 1

Helpp Editing this Paragraph...Please!?
If I were a Supreme Court justice, I would take part in judicial restraint due to my faith in the Constitution. Not only is the Constitution our country’s foundation, but it has been amended and interpreted consistently enough to make it somewhat recent and applicable to modern issues and court cases. In addition, judicial activism could lead to our country and its court system declining into chaos due to a lack of consistency and fairness. An example is court cases dealing with drunk-driving. With justices supporting activism, one may end up being in jail for life, another may end up getting his license temporarily taken away but get to keep his car, and yet another may end up losing both his license and car for life. Judicial restraint and relying on the Constitution would prevent this.

Hope it's ok!

Answer 2

This is better than the one-sentence that you started with. Uou seem to be attempting to make the point that activist justices would cause chaos in the courts. Drunk driving cases are not the best example here because these are state offenses and rarely, if ever go to the Supreme Court for discussion. The Supreme Court deals with the Constitutionality of laws, not the punishment of crimes. Justices uphold or put down lower court decisions based on whether or not proper due process was followed and the laws that were enforced were constitutional. Your point is that justices should restrain themselves to interpretation of the Constitution and that the same constitution has been amended and interpreted consistently enough to make it applicable to the legal issues of today.