# data[].attributes.body
Activism: Courts have an unbalance of Constitutional law and personal beliefs of justices.
Restraint: Court policy becomes strictly based on the Constitution and personal beliefs of justices are lesser than Constitutional law.

# data[].attributes.body
Activism: When judges decide to use their powers to strike down a law and assert their powers over what they might believe is a bad law, even if it doesn't necessarily go against the constitution.
Restraint: Judicial restraint is the avoidance of striking down a law. This limits the judges' power and leaves some interpretation of laws up to the general public/other branches.

# data[].attributes.body
Activism: The judges use there own interpretation of a law, it doesn't necessarily have to be directly stated in the constitution.
Restraint:  When the court is more hesitant to strike down a law. They only strike it down if it's seen as directly unconstitutional to the judge

# data[].attributes.body
Activism: The individual judges don't necessarily stick to constitutional law and they use their own personal beliefs and morals to help take into consideration current societal issues. loosely relies on constitutional law.
Restraint: Very strict use of the constitution, limits the use of power.

# data[].attributes.body
Restraint: limit the ability of the power the courts have and ensures the judges to proceeded with caution when striking down laws
Activism: courts go beyond the law to consider societal issues

# data[].attributes.body
Activism - loosely relies on the constitution language when determining; the constitution implies meaning
Restraint - word by word interpretation from constitution; what's written in the constitution specifically is what is meant

# data[].attributes.body
Activism- Is the approach of judges excising Judaical review, and where a judge will interpret their own personal opinion or feelings into a sentence. A more open to new ideas and values approach.
Restraint-  Is more of a approach to limit judges to exercise their own power, and to only act when a law is obviously unconstitutional.

# data[].attributes.body
strict constructionism is a characteristic of judicial restraint

judicial activists are less likely to respect the judgements of the American people as expressed through state legislation

# data[].attributes.body
Restraint - A judge's ability to limit their usage of power, such as hesitating to strike down a law unless clearly unconstitutional... and being hesitant to create new law. Stare Decisis.
Activism - Judges having their own interpretation of law(s) rather than following precedent set.

# data[].attributes.body
Activism: The court would most likely ignore stare decisis (to “stand by things decided”; doctrine of precedent) and overturn precedents from previous courts
Restraint: Court sticks strictly to stare decisis and this type of court is often associated with conservative type judges that are strict constructionist type judges (Ex: Rehnquist)

# data[].attributes.body
Activism: Aiming for change and more open to new ideas, looser interpretation of the Constitution
Restraint: Aiming to limit the use of power and interpret according to the Constitution (more restricted intepretation)

# data[].attributes.body
Activism: less likely to respect the judgement of the American people as expressed through federal and state legislation
Restraint: Base decisions solely off of obligation to the court to honor previous decisions.
Definition: Judicial Activism is the process in which judges exceed constitutional powers and believe they are the best branch to defend and individual's rights. Judicial Restraint refers to the belief that the courts should leave policy decision to other two branches

# data[].attributes.body
Restraint: Judges limit their action and power by standing by past decisions or reforms- only interepretation
Activism: Decisions based on ideas, high controversy decisions that are made off of "right vs. wrong" ideas

# data[].attributes.body
restraint - Judges are encouraged to limit the exercise of their own power,
Activism- courts should act as guardians towards the people

# data[].attributes.body
Activism: Efforts to make a change, usually brought from (inspired by) controversial topics.

Judicial restraint vs Judicial activism:

Judicial restraint strictly follows an interpretation of the constitution while judicial activism is more 'loose' with its interpretation to better apply to current changes.

# data[].attributes.body
Judicial Restraint: Refusing to change much of the status quo in past decisions in favor of the set precedent.
Judicial Activism: Interfering with set precedent in order to change the interpretation of law to the best of the court's limited ability.

# data[].attributes.body
Restraint: Aims for consistency - using precedents and assumed understandings to reach a conclusion (stare decisis). Tends to be more conservative (not politically) in terms of decision making.
Activism: Aims for change - reinterpreting, retconning past decisions to do so, or perhaps setting new precedents for the future. Tends to be more fluid and open with limitations in decision making. Unlike restraint, cases that involve activism are less likely to have wholly unifying attitudes towards the problem.

# data[].attributes.body
Activism- Judges bring in their personal opinion when making a decision instead of upholding existing cases.
Restraint- Judges base their decisions on stare decisis to honor previous decisions.
-avoid striking down a law the courts have held before

# data[].attributes.body
Activism -

A court would strive for ideological direction rather than consensus across the court.

`more likely for 5-4 decisions

Restraint -

Belief that policy decisions should be left to legislative and executive branches.

More likely to not strike down lower court decisions or overturn previous SCOUTS cases.

# data[].attributes.body
Activism:
- courts expand their power
- trustee of the people
- apply personal judgement and philosophy

Restraint:
- confined to role of the courts defined in the constitution
- NO role in policy making process
-  Can the courts hear this decision in the first place
-  Strictly objective

# data[].attributes.body
Activism: Judges are more progressive/open to social, economic, and political reform, go beyond the law to consider broader societal responses to their decisions, judges make rulings based off their own political agenda rather than precedent.
Restraint: Judges hesitate to get rid of outdated laws, respect the stare decisis, religiously uphold established precedence, tend to lean more conservative.

# data[].attributes.body
Restraint: Judges limit their use of power, they interpret the law in terms of the Constitution and only strike down laws that are always unconstitutional.
Activism: Being an activist usually means going beyond the law and consider broader implications of laws.

# data[].attributes.body
Expanded role of the court... active role in policy making
Looks beyond the law, consider one's (justice's) own views
Are more likely to over turn precedence
A willingness to overturn laws made by Congress and Signed by the President
TENDENCY to be more representative of the liberal side of the court
Look for cases that are closely decided, cases that involve individual Civil Rights (14th Amendment)

# data[].attributes.body
Less likely to strike down established case law
Policy decisions should be left to the legislature and the states
Don't go beyond the Constitution... interpreting the Constitution as stated.
Refrain from overstepping their role as stated in the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.body
Create a succinct definition of Judicial Activism and Restraint.