View Here : Judicial Restraint
Judicial restraint, a procedural or substantive approach to the exercise of judicial review. As a procedural doctrine, the principle of restraint urges judges to refrain from deciding legal issues, and especially constitutional ones, unless the decision is necessary to the resolution of a concrete dispute between adverse parties.
Judicial Restraint. The term judicial restraint refers to a belief that judges should limit the use of their power to strike down laws, or to declare them unfair or unconstitutional, unless there is a clear conflict with the Constitution.
Judicial restraint. Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation—a theory of how judges interpret laws. Like most abstract theories, definitions vary slightly according to different sources. In general, judicial restraint is the concept of a judge not injecting his or her own preferences into legal proceedings and rulings.
Judicial restraint. Judicial restraint is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism. In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicially restrained judges respect stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent handed down by past judges.
Judicial restraint is the opposite of judicial activism in that it seeks to limit the power of judges to create new laws or policy. Judicial activism implies that a judge is falling back more on his personal interpretation of a law than on precedent. He allows his own personal perceptions to bleed into his decisions.
judicial restraint. A view, associated with Felix Frankfurter among others, that judges should be reluctant to declare legislative enactments unconstitutional unless the conflict between the enactment and the Constitution is obvious. The doctrine is akin to, but not identical with, narrow construction, and it is the opposite of judicial activism.
Judicial Restraint. Judicial restraint limits the powers of judges to strike down a law. As opposed to the progressiveness of judicial activism, judicial restraint opines that the courts should uphold all acts and laws of Congress and legislatures unless they oppose the United States Constitution.
Judicial restraint. The view that the Supreme Court (and other lesser courts) should not read the judges' own philosophies or policy preferences into the constitution and laws and should whenever reasonably possible construe the law so as to avoid second guessing the policy decisions made by other governmental institutions such as Congress, the President and state governments within their ...
judicial restraint. Judicial restraint, a procedural or substantive approach to the exercise of judicial review. As a procedural doctrine, the principle of restraint urges judges to refrain from deciding legal issues, and especially constitutional ones, unless the decision is necessary to the resolution of a concrete dispute between adverse parties.
judicial restraint. judicial deference to the views of legislatures and adherence to strict jurisdictional standards (looking strictly into the words of the Constitution in interpreting its meaning)