Judicial restraint and activism are philosophies that define legitimate judicial action

Evidence

Some judges subscribe to a philosophy of judicial restraint, which limits the factors that they can validly consider in reaching a decision and the circumstances in which they can legitimately overrule a precedent or strike down a legislative enactment. Other judges embrace the philosophy of judicial activism, which places less emphasis on the doctrine of stare decisis and on deference to legislative judgment. Appropriate judicial behavior, then, depends on the judge’s choice of a particular role orientation. Conceivably, a judge’s choice among possible role orientations may be influenced by the judge’s attitudes and political values. Thus, during the 1960s and 1970s, liberal judges also tended to be activists. Since the mid-1980s, however, judicial conservatives have been interested in reversing many of the rulings of their liberal predecessors, and thus, one finds some conservative judges, such as Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, exhibiting an activist role orientation. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1333

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the restraint/activism distinction and shows how role orientation choice tracks the judge’s political values.
• XREF: connects to: Norms of proper judicial conduct vary across courts and over time — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2610

Broader Connections

• Norms of proper judicial conduct vary across courts and over time #expands (0.72) — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2610