Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint?

Question

Can anyone tell me a Supreme Court Case that involved these two theories and also why people believe in them???

I know what they are but I don't know why people support them.

Answer 1

Griswold vs. Connecticut, 1965, was a prime example of judical activism- more so than Roe vs. Wade which is a little further down the jurispurdence chain. Justice Douglas claimed the rights provided in that case came from a "penumbra" of other rights afforded in the constitution, but he knew that he was "making something up" so to speak. When a judge expands constitutional principles like that in order to justify behavior, that is a sign of judicial activism.

Bush v. Gore, 2000, is a sign of judicial restraint. In order for then Vice President Gore to have been given the chance for a manual recount, a court would have had to expand the state constitution of Florida in order to enable him to something he was not entitled. By denying Gore, the court was allowing the originalist language of the Florida constitution to stand up, It is harder to come up with examples of judicial restraint because they don't teach as much of that in constitutional law classes.

Answer 2

Simply put:
Judicial activism is when a judge does not follow a set standard but rather, goes by his personal feelings. Say for example, he sentences a man to 5 years in prison for a cime then later sentences another man to 25 years in prison for the same crime. His argument is that he had reasons in the 2nd case. This type of wide range with no standards is judicial acivism.

Judicial restraint is the opposite where a judge tries to go by set guidelines. Like for example say the standard punishment for robbery is 5 to 7 years in prison. This type of judge would stay within those guidelines in his sentencing.

Here is a piece of a great article you can check out on the subject at
http://www.amatecon.com/etext/jar/jar.html

Judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" raise logically obvious but often ignored questions: Activism toward what? Restraint toward what? Are judges deemed to be activist or restrained toward (1) the current popular majority, (2) the legislature representing the current popular majority, (3) the statutes passed by present or past legislatures, (4) the acts of current of past executive or administrative agencies, (5) the meaning of the words in the Constitution, (6) the principles or purposes of those who wrote the Constitution, or (7) the legal precedents established by previous judicial interpretations of the Constitution? ...

Answer 3

Judicial acitivism is a term used by political scholars wherein a judge consider outcomes, attitudinal preferences and public policy issues in interpreting laws.

Judicial restraint is an interpretation where the judges limit the exercise of their power and tends not to strike down laws unless grossly unconstitutional.

Michigan versus Long (1983) delves about judicial restraint,
Furman versus Georgia (1972) on judicial activism.

Answer 4

the 1st one seems at a regulation and then says that's not what that's going to be and makes a sparkling regulation. the 2d reads the regulation and assessments to be certain regardless of if that's what the form says and then say that's Constitutional or not. This one would not make rules.