Judicial restraint

Judicial restraint is a judicial philosophy which believes in the limited exercise of judicial powers. Jurists practicing judicial restrain have been described as "strict constructionist," "interpretivist," and "textualist".

Related Topics:
Philosophy - Judicial power - Jurist

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Judicial restraint is thought to bring stability and predictability to jurisprudence. A supporter of judicial restraint often see the judicial branch as the weakest branch—relegated to deciding cases and controversies.

Related Topics:
Jurisprudence - Judicial branch - Cases and controversies

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the framers and the Constitution. Judicial restraint requires the judge to first look to the Constitution. If the meaning cannot be discerned, the judge is then permitted to look to the intent of the framers. Only when neither the Constitution nor the intent clarifies an issue may a judge invoke his own understanding of the issue.

Related Topics:
Constitutional law - Jurist - Constitution - Intent - Framers

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Moreover, judicial restraint requires strict adherence to stare decisis and precedent to ensure stability and predictability.

Related Topics:
Stare decisis - Precedent

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Supporters of judicial restrain see the Supreme Court case, Roe v. Wade (1973), as the antithesis of judicial restraint—judicial activism.

Related Topics:
Supreme Court - Roe v. Wade - 1973 - Judicial activism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~