Difference between Judicial activism and Judicial restraint Essay

Difference between Judicial activism and Judicial restraint - Essay Example In Judicial restraint, the Supreme Court, as well as the judges from other lower courts occasionally, construe to the constitution in a manner that the policies placed by the Federal Government and the state governments are always taken into consideration (Lowi et.al, 2012). This implies that the decisions arrived at by the judges should acknowledge the limits of power of those in authority. Judicial activism, on the other hand, does not recognize the limits of power. This is major because the judges tend to construe the Constitution based on their own philosophies, which is a practice that many times results in interpretive fidelity.I believe the US Supreme Court should embrace judicial restraint rather than judicial activism. This is major because, in as much as we subject the judges of our land to quality and inclusive training, decisions should normally be arrived on based on what is entrenched in the Constitution. In addition, judicial activism, which allows judges to arrive at decisions based on their own perceptions may result in laws being manipulated to satisfy the interests of given individuals. In addition, an unconstitutional practice, which if left unattended to, would render our constitution useless with time.An example of a case where judicial restraint was duly practiced was District of Columbia vs. Heller case, which was decided in 2008 after a nine-year duration (Lowi Ginsberg, Shepsle, & Ansolabehere, 2012). The matter of contention in the case was whether the D.C code.