Judicial Activism vs. Restraint
How should the Judicial Branch take action?
What's it mean?
Supporters of judicial activism see that judicial review is important as part of the system of checks and balances on the other branches of government. They also feel that following the precedent is not always the best choice, because mistakes may have been made in the past, and each case needs to be dealt with separately. Judicial activism also encourages the court to correct injustices and shape government policy, which supporters of judicial restraint feel is not the constitutional right of the court.
How is it different from Judicial Activism?
Those who support judicial restraint believe that the court should always have an extremely objective view, and assess whether or not previous rulings or actions by other branches of government violate the Constitution. Many also believe that the court should be consistent, and make rulings that go along with preceding rulings.
Which is better?
The best choice for the actions of the Judicial Branch would obviously be whichever choice allows justice to be carried out to the fullest extent. Everyone's definition of justice varies, which is why the controversy of Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint has not been resolved.