| Judicial Restraint |
Article Index for Judicial |
Website Links For Judicial |
Information AboutJudicial Restraint |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT JUDICIAL RESTRAINT | |
| legal history of the united states | |
| legal terms | |
| court systems | |
| SHOPPER'S DELIGHT | |
|
In deciding questions of Constitutional Law , judicially-restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the framers and the Constitution . Judicial restraint requires the judge to look first to the Constitution. If the meaning cannot be discerned, the judge is then permitted to look to the Intent of the Framers . Only when neither the Constitution nor the intent clarifies an issue may a judge invoke his own understanding of the issue. Some critics of this sort of originalist philosophy argue that too much deference to the framers really entails Judicial Activism . These critics argue that reference to the framers is really a sort of pro-conservative activism, since the framers held considerably more conservative views than do modern Americans. Another form of restraint is embraced by Judicial Minimalists , who argue that the more important properties of restraint are adherence to '' Stare Decisis '' and Precedent , properties that ensure stability and predictablility. Minimalists argue that judges should make only minor, incremental changes to Consitutional Law in order to maintain that stability. They ask judges to do this by creating small, case-specific rulings rather than broad, sweeping rulings. All forms of Judicial restraint are thought to bring stability and predictability to Jurisprudence . Supporters often see the judiciary as properly the weakest branch of Government , responsible only for deciding Cases And Controversies . SEE ALSO |