I think in general, the two terms are used interchangeably. Judicial activism is an attempt by a court or judge to force an action that hasn’t been taken. It is an attempt by a court or judge to create a new precedent. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, is an attempt by a court or judge to keep an existing precedent, or to stay within the existing precedent.
Judicial restraint is much more restrictive than judicial activism because it doesn’t create new precedents. It allows a court to do some of the things it would be doing under the influence of a new precedent, but still within the existing precedent. It puts some constraints over the actions of courts, but not much over the actions of judges. Judicial restraint is the most restrictive of the two terms, but I think it’s the most interesting.
When a judge is making a decision, the idea is that the judges are to be guided by the law and the precedent. Judicial activism is much more expansive and its goal is to overturn previous decisions. Its goal is to expand the scope of the law itself, and I think that is the case with several of the decisions that have been made in recent years. We don’t really get that with judicial restraint, even though it is a much more restrictive term. I think its the most interesting.
Judicial activism is when judges are making decisions that actually expand the scope of the law. In the past, judges have tried to limit the scope of the law in a number of ways. The most common of these is that judges have tried to change the law in ways that don’t actually make sense to the people who had to write it in the first place. One of the more recent cases where the law was expanded in this way is the decision in the Hobby Lobby case.
The law in the Hobby Lobby case was actually set up by a court case decided in the late 90s, when the case started being appealed, that basically said that companies, like Hobby Lobby, could basically tell the government what to do. Now, the government is making decisions that no one wants and the other side are saying that they should be able to keep it the way they have it. In this case, there was a ruling that forced a company to not use contraceptives.
This is basically the government saying they don’t like the company and that they are going to start taking away their rights.
Judicial activism is a legal approach that has been around for a long time and is actually a very new concept. I just learned about it tonight in a blog post by a friend of mine who works in the law. He’s been working with this concept for quite a long time. Basically it’s when a court decides that a company has to stop doing something that they feel is bad for the company, the company says that they can’t afford to do it any more and gets sued.
Its not that they can sue the company, but they can sue the court that decides that the company should stop doing it. Hes been working with this concept for quite a long time. Basically its when a court decides that a company has to stop doing something that they feel is bad for the company, the company says that they cant afford to do it any more and gets sued.
Now, this concept is extremely useful. It’s one of the reasons why the court system is so much more effective than the police and the government. Even if you decide that you cant afford to stop doing something bad, you can still use the law to keep doing it.
its hard to explain the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint. Judicial restraint is when a court stops a company from doing something because of legal reasons. For example if a company is going to invest in a new product or a new business. The company would be asking the courts to stop them from doing this. The court is going to make sure that the company can afford to do this, but it doesn’t have to stop them from doing it.
