Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Restraint

The debate between judicial activism and judicial restraint centers on the extent of judicial intervention in public policy. Judicial activism involves an expansive interpretation of constitutional rights, often resulting in proactive measures to correct social injustices. In contrast, judicial restraint advocates for a limited role, deferring to the decisions of the legislature and executive unless there is a clear violation of constitutional provisions.

This tension is evident in landmark cases where courts have either stepped in to enforce rights or opted to exercise deference to political branches. For example, while some rulings on environmental protections have been hailed as activist and necessary, others have been criticized for intruding into policy matters best left to elected officials.

Ultimately, the ideal approach requires a judicious balance where the judiciary intervenes only when essential to preserve constitutional values and protect individual rights, without undermining the mandate of the other branches of government.