What does "judicial activism" primarily involve?

What does "judicial activism" primarily involve?

• A. Strict adherence to existing laws
• B. Rulings based on societal implications and personal interpretation
• C. Judges following precedent without deviation
• D. Limiting the power of the judiciary

Answer: (B)

Judicial activism primarily involves rulings that are influenced by the societal implications of the decisions and the personal interpretations of the judges. This approach allows judges to consider broader social contexts and the potential impact of their rulings, rather than strictly adhering to the letter of the law or existing precedents. In practice, judicial activism means that judges may take into account evolving standards of society and the need for law to adapt to contemporary issues. This can lead to decisions that reflect current social values or address injustices that existing laws may not adequately resolve. By prioritizing these factors, judicial activism can result in significant changes in law and policy, as judges assume a more proactive role in shaping legal outcomes. This contrasts sharply with other judicial philosophies, such as strict constructionism or judicial restraint, where judges focus on adhering closely to the text of the law, established precedents, and limiting their own power in interpreting the law.

Judicial activism primarily involves rulings that are influenced by the societal implications of the decisions and the personal interpretations of the judges. This approach allows judges to consider broader social contexts and the potential impact of their rulings, rather than strictly adhering to the letter of the law or existing precedents.

In practice, judicial activism means that judges may take into account evolving standards of society and the need for law to adapt to contemporary issues. This can lead to decisions that reflect current social values or address injustices that existing laws may not adequately resolve. By prioritizing these factors, judicial activism can result in significant changes in law and policy, as judges assume a more proactive role in shaping legal outcomes.

This contrasts sharply with other judicial philosophies, such as strict constructionism or judicial restraint, where judges focus on adhering closely to the text of the law, established precedents, and limiting their own power in interpreting the law.