Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. Judicial interpretation is a theory or mode of thought that explains how the Judiciary should interpret the Law, particularly Constitutional documents A judge, or justice, is an Official who presides over a Court of law It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional. [1] It is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism. Judicial activism is a pejorative term for the misuse of judicial power and is a neologism for the older classical term " board judicial review.

In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially-restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Constitutional law is the study of foundational or basic Laws of nation states and other political organizations Judicial restraint requires the judge to uphold a law whenever possible.

Contents 1 Related theories 1.1 Minimalism 1.2 Political question doctrine 2 See also

Related theories

Minimalism

Judicial minimalists argue that judges should put great emphases on adherence to stare decisis and precedent. Stare decisis is a common law doctrine under which judges are obligated to follow the precedents established in prior decisions In Common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a Legal case establishing a principle or rule that a Court or other judicial Minimalists argue that judges should make only minor, incremental changes to constitutional law in order to maintain that stability. They ask judges to do this by creating small, case-specific rulings rather than broad, sweeping rulings.

Political question doctrine

The political question doctrine encourages courts to decline to rule in certain categories of controversial cases. In United States law, a ruling that a matter in controversy is a political question is a statement by a federal court declining to rule in a case because Under this theory, a court acknowledges that the Constitution might have been violated but declines to act. It is often described as a type of judicial restraint, although it can be considered a form of judicial activism against plaintiffs whose rights have been violated and find their cases dismissed.

See also

• Judicial activism
• Separation of powers
• Luther v. Borden - sometimes called the first instance of judicial restraint

Judicial activism is a pejorative term for the misuse of judicial power and is a neologism for the older classical term " board judicial review. Separation of powers, a term ascribed to French Enlightenment Political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu, is a model for the Governance Luther v Borden, 48 US 1 ( 1849) was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the Political question

---

© 2009 citizendia.org; parts available under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License, from http://en.wikipedia.org
Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic