The doctrine of Judicial Restraint suggests that judges,
while in the course of making legal decisions and setting precedents, should limit
overturning laws unless that legislation is very obviously unconstitutional. It also
has come to be synonymous with judges who adhere strictly to legal interpretations and
existing decisions and laws, and who remain dispassionate and impartial when hearing
cases.
Judicial Activism, on the other hand, is the exact
opposite. Legally it means that a judge takes political and personal considerations
into account when making a ruling or writing an opinion. In political exchanges, it has
most commonly been associated with a ruling that is merely controversial or unpopular,
especially by those on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and it has
become something of a misnomer. It is sometimes, therefore, confused with judicial
discretion - where a judge can take into account all of the circumstances of the case
and sentence or rule with that in mind, as opposed to "legislating from the bench",
which is much more rare in my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment