Exam 10: Ethical Misconduct in the Courts and Responses

Correct Answer:

Answered by Examlex AI Copilot

Judicial activism and judicial constructionism are two different approaches to interpreting and applying the law.

Judicial activism refers to the tendency of judges to interpret the law in a way that advances their own personal or political beliefs. This can involve expanding the scope of existing laws, overturning precedent, or even creating new laws through judicial decisions. Proponents of judicial activism argue that it is necessary for judges to adapt the law to changing social and political realities, and to protect individual rights and liberties.

On the other hand, judicial constructionism, also known as judicial restraint, is the belief that judges should limit their interpretation of the law to the text and original intent of the Constitution and statutes. This approach emphasizes the importance of adhering to precedent and deferring to the other branches of government in making and interpreting laws. Proponents of judicial constructionism argue that it is essential for maintaining the separation of powers and the rule of law.

In summary, judicial activism involves a more flexible and expansive interpretation of the law, while judicial constructionism emphasizes a more strict and limited approach. Both approaches have their proponents and critics, and the balance between the two is an ongoing debate in the legal and political spheres.