Define judicial activism and judicial restraint. Explain the reasons the judges would exercise activism or restraint and tell how Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of education were example of each.

Judicial activ is simply the judicial rulings in which a ruling overlooks legal precedents or past constitutional interpretations in favor of supporting a particular political view and such ruling are being based on personal opinion, rather than on existing law.

This word was first used by Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. in 1947; While, Judicial restraint helps judges to limit the exercise of their own power where these judges who practice judicial restraint hand down rulings that strictly adhere to the original intent of the Constitution.

saltywhitehorse saltywhitehorse · Answer 2 · 2022-04-01T14:05:12+02:00

The judicial activism relates to Brown v Board of education and judicial restraint to Plessy v Ferguson.

The Judicial Activism and Restraint

Judicial activism is the assertion of the power of judicial review to set aside state acts.

Brown v Board of education court case accomplished by setting government acts aside.

Brown v. Board of Education declared segregation in schools illegal.

The Southern states had massive sentiment towards African Americas and kept them separated based on separate but equal doctrine.

Judicial restraint allows government acts by leaving the issue to politics.

The decision of Plessy v Ferguson by the Supreme Court approved segregation as it did not violate the constitution.

Segregation was legal on transportation, hotels, parks, and schools.

Learn more about Judicial Activism here:

brainly.com/question/509532