Enter a player name to begin or load your saved progress.
Judicial restraint is a judicial philosophy that advocates for courts to refrain from overturning existing laws and precedents unless absolutely necessary, emphasizing adherence to established legal principles and the status quo.
Answer: True
Explanation: Judicial restraint advocates for courts to refrain from overturning laws and precedents unless absolutely necessary, emphasizing adherence to established legal principles and the status quo.
The principle of stare decisis, which mandates adherence to established legal precedents, is fundamental to judicial restraint, promoting consistency and stability in judicial decision-making.
Answer: True
Explanation: The principle of stare decisis, which mandates adherence to established legal precedents, is fundamental to judicial restraint, promoting consistency and stability in judicial decision-making.
Judicial restraint guides courts to issue narrow rulings that address only the specific facts of a case, rather than establishing broad, wide-ranging new legal principles.
Answer: False
Explanation: Judicial restraint guides courts to issue narrow rulings that address only the specific facts of a case, rather than establishing broad, wide-ranging new legal principles.
Under judicial restraint, courts are generally encouraged to uphold existing laws and are hesitant to overturn them unless they present a clear and obvious violation of constitutional principles.
Answer: True
Explanation: Under judicial restraint, courts are generally encouraged to uphold existing laws and are hesitant to overturn them unless they present a clear and obvious violation of constitutional principles.
Rulings made with judicial restraint are typically narrow in scope and specific to the facts of the case, rather than being broad or establishing new rights.
Answer: True
Explanation: Rulings made with judicial restraint are typically narrow in scope and specific to the facts of the case, rather than being broad or establishing new rights.
Judicial minimalism, characterized by narrow, case-specific rulings, aligns closely with the principles of judicial restraint, as both emphasize limiting the scope of judicial decisions.
Answer: True
Explanation: Judicial minimalism, characterized by narrow, case-specific rulings, aligns closely with the principles of judicial restraint, as both emphasize limiting the scope of judicial decisions.
The phrase 'respect for the court's own previous decisions' refers to the principle of stare decisis, a core tenet of judicial restraint.
Answer: True
Explanation: The phrase 'respect for the court's own previous decisions' refers to the principle of stare decisis, a core tenet of judicial restraint.
To rule narrowly means a court's decision is limited to the specific facts and issues of the case, avoiding broader implications.
Answer: True
Explanation: To rule narrowly means a court's decision is limited to the specific facts and issues of the case, avoiding broader implications.
The concept of 'rule according to higher law,' which suggests decisions should align with fundamental moral or natural laws, may sometimes conflict with strict judicial restraint's emphasis on precedent and statutory text.
Answer: False
Explanation: The concept of 'rule according to higher law,' which suggests decisions should align with fundamental moral or natural laws, may sometimes conflict with strict judicial restraint's emphasis on precedent and statutory text.
Judicial restraint respects the separation of powers by avoiding judicial overreach into legislative or executive functions, thereby upholding the distinct roles of governmental branches.
Answer: True
Explanation: Judicial restraint respects the separation of powers by avoiding judicial overreach into legislative or executive functions, thereby upholding the distinct roles of governmental branches.
Legal realism, which acknowledges the influence of social factors and personal beliefs on judicial decisions, generally contrasts with the principles of judicial restraint.
Answer: False
Explanation: Legal realism, which acknowledges the influence of social factors and personal beliefs on judicial decisions, generally contrasts with the principles of judicial restraint.
Judicial restraint might lead a court to be hesitant to declare actions 'ultra vires' (beyond legal powers) unless the violation is clear and significant, preferring to uphold actions within the existing legal framework.
Answer: False
Explanation: Judicial restraint might lead a court to be hesitant to declare actions 'ultra vires' (beyond legal powers) unless the violation is clear and significant, preferring to uphold actions within the existing legal framework.
Which of the following best describes the fundamental principle of judicial restraint? Favoring the existing situation, known as the status quo, in judicial actions.
Answer: Favoring the existing situation, known as the status quo, in judicial actions.
Explanation: The fundamental principle of judicial restraint is to defer to the existing situation or status quo, avoiding active intervention or significant changes in legal interpretation or policy.
How does judicial restraint contrast with judicial activism? Judicial restraint defers to the status quo, while activism actively shapes policy and potentially overturns precedents.
Answer: Judicial restraint defers to the status quo, while activism actively shapes policy and potentially overturns precedents.
Explanation: Judicial restraint emphasizes deference to the status quo and existing legal frameworks, whereas judicial activism involves courts actively shaping policy and potentially overturning established precedents or laws.
What role does 'stare decisis' play in judicial restraint? It is a key aspect guiding judges to ensure new decisions are consistent with past rulings.
Answer: It is a key aspect guiding judges to ensure new decisions are consistent with past rulings.
Explanation: Stare decisis, the principle of adhering to precedent, is central to judicial restraint, ensuring legal consistency and predictability by guiding judges to follow prior decisions.
Which characteristic best describes judicial verdicts made with judicial restraint? Narrowly tailored verdicts addressing only specific issues presented.
Answer: Narrowly tailored verdicts addressing only specific issues presented.
Explanation: Verdicts made with judicial restraint are typically characterized by their narrow tailoring, addressing only the specific issues presented by the case at hand.
How does judicial restraint influence a court's decision on existing laws? Laws are generally upheld unless they present a flagrant violation of constitutional principles.
Answer: Laws are generally upheld unless they present a flagrant violation of constitutional principles.
Explanation: Judicial restraint influences decisions on existing laws by favoring their upholding, intervening only when a law presents a flagrant violation of constitutional principles.
Which of the following best describes rulings made with judicial restraint? Decisions that are small in scope and specific to the facts of the case.
Answer: Decisions that are small in scope and specific to the facts of the case.
Explanation: Rulings made with judicial restraint are characterized by their limited scope and specificity to the particular facts of the case.
How does judicial minimalism relate to judicial restraint? Judicial minimalism involves narrow, case-specific rulings, aligning with judicial restraint.
Answer: Judicial minimalism involves narrow, case-specific rulings, aligning with judicial restraint.
Explanation: Judicial minimalism, which emphasizes narrow, case-specific rulings, is closely aligned with judicial restraint, as both approaches seek to limit the impact and scope of judicial decisions.
How does judicial restraint connect with the separation of powers? By respecting the distinct roles of the legislative and executive branches and preventing judicial overreach.
Answer: By respecting the distinct roles of the legislative and executive branches and preventing judicial overreach.
Explanation: Judicial restraint connects with the separation of powers by respecting the distinct roles of the legislative and executive branches and actively preventing judicial overreach.
Which judicial philosophy emphasizes strict adherence to legal rules and precedents, often aligning with judicial restraint? Legal Formalism.
Answer: Legal Formalism
Explanation: Legal Formalism, which emphasizes strict adherence to legal rules and precedents, often aligns with the principles of judicial restraint.
The principle of 'respect for the court's own previous decisions' is synonymous with: Stare decisis.
Answer: Stare decisis
Explanation: The principle of 'respect for the court's own previous decisions' is synonymous with stare decisis, a cornerstone of judicial restraint.
Which of the following is a characteristic of rulings made with judicial restraint? They avoid broad pronouncements.
Answer: They avoid broad pronouncements.
Explanation: A characteristic of rulings made with judicial restraint is that they avoid broad pronouncements, focusing instead on narrow, case-specific resolutions.
Courts exercising judicial restraint typically adopt a conservative approach to granting standing, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate a significant personal stake or injury in the matter, rather than being liberal in their approach.
Answer: False
Explanation: Courts exercising judicial restraint typically adopt a conservative approach to granting standing, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate a significant personal stake or injury in the matter, rather than being liberal in their approach.
A court practicing judicial restraint may exhibit reluctance in granting certiorari, the discretionary review of lower court decisions, as a means to avoid potentially broad interpretations or unnecessary case engagement.
Answer: True
Explanation: A court practicing judicial restraint may exhibit reluctance in granting certiorari, the discretionary review of lower court decisions, as a means to avoid potentially broad interpretations or unnecessary case engagement.
A court exercising judicial restraint may opt to avoid hearing a case by classifying the issue as a 'political question,' which it deems better resolved by the legislative or executive branches.
Answer: True
Explanation: A court exercising judicial restraint may opt to avoid hearing a case by classifying the issue as a 'political question,' which it deems better resolved by the legislative or executive branches.
A court might decide it lacks jurisdiction as an act of judicial restraint, by adhering strictly to its defined legal boundaries.
Answer: False
Explanation: A court might decide it lacks jurisdiction as an act of judicial restraint, by adhering strictly to its defined legal boundaries, rather than as an act of judicial activism.
Judicial restraint on appeal typically means a court will be hesitant to overturn a lower court's ruling, preferring to affirm them unless a clear error or compelling reason exists.
Answer: True
Explanation: Judicial restraint on appeal typically means a court will be hesitant to overturn a lower court's ruling, preferring to affirm them unless a clear error or compelling reason exists.
Justiciability refers to a case's appropriateness for judicial resolution; courts practicing restraint may find cases non-justiciable if they involve political questions or lack concrete disputes, thus avoiding decisions on the merits.
Answer: True
Explanation: Justiciability refers to a case's appropriateness for judicial resolution; courts practicing restraint may find cases non-justiciable if they involve political questions or lack concrete disputes, thus avoiding decisions on the merits.
In the context of judicial restraint, how might a court approach the issue of standing (locus standi)? By adopting a conservative approach and requiring a significant personal stake or injury.
Answer: By adopting a conservative approach and requiring a significant personal stake or injury.
Explanation: Judicial restraint typically leads courts to adopt a conservative approach to standing, demanding that plaintiffs demonstrate a substantial personal stake or injury in the matter before hearing a case.
What is the significance of certiorari in relation to judicial restraint? Reluctance to grant certiorari signifies a preference for avoiding broad interpretations or hearing certain cases.
Answer: Reluctance to grant certiorari signifies a preference for avoiding broad interpretations or hearing certain cases.
Explanation: A court practicing judicial restraint may be reluctant to grant certiorari, thereby limiting its engagement with cases and avoiding the potential for broad legal pronouncements.
According to the source, which of the following is a method a court practicing judicial restraint might use to avoid hearing a case? Declaring the issue a political question best left to other branches.
Answer: Declaring the issue a political question best left to other branches.
Explanation: A court practicing judicial restraint may avoid hearing a case by deeming the issue a 'political question,' thereby deferring resolution to the legislative or executive branches.
When might a court decide it has no jurisdiction as an act of judicial restraint? When the matter falls outside its legal authority or scope of powers.
Answer: When the matter falls outside its legal authority or scope of powers.
Explanation: A court might decide it lacks jurisdiction as an exercise of judicial restraint when the case presented falls outside its established legal authority or scope of powers.
What is the typical approach of judicial restraint regarding appeals of lower court rulings? To affirm lower court decisions unless there is a clear error or compelling reason.
Answer: To affirm lower court decisions unless there is a clear error or compelling reason.
Explanation: Regarding appeals, judicial restraint typically leads courts to affirm lower court decisions unless a clear error or compelling reason necessitates overturning them.
The concept of 'justiciability' relates to judicial restraint by: Allowing courts to avoid decisions on political questions or non-concrete disputes.
Answer: Allowing courts to avoid decisions on political questions or non-concrete disputes.
Explanation: Justiciability relates to judicial restraint by enabling courts to avoid deciding cases involving political questions or disputes lacking concrete issues.
Which of the following is NOT a way mentioned in the source that a court practicing judicial restraint might avoid hearing a case? Granting certiorari liberally.
Answer: Granting certiorari liberally.
Explanation: Granting certiorari liberally is contrary to the practice of judicial restraint, which often involves reluctance to hear cases.
The Ashwander rules guide the Supreme Court to avoid ruling on constitutional questions whenever a case can be resolved on statutory or other non-constitutional grounds.
Answer: False
Explanation: The Ashwander rules guide the Supreme Court to avoid ruling on constitutional questions whenever a case can be resolved on statutory or other non-constitutional grounds, thereby practicing judicial self-restraint.
The Ashwander rules were established in the case of Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority.
Answer: True
Explanation: The Ashwander rules were established in the case of Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority.
Justice Louis D. Brandeis articulated the Ashwander rules in his concurring opinion in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority.
Answer: False
Explanation: Justice Louis D. Brandeis articulated the Ashwander rules in his concurring opinion in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority.
The first Ashwander rule states that the Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversarial proceeding, requiring a genuine controversy.
Answer: True
Explanation: The first Ashwander rule states that the Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, non-adversarial proceeding, requiring a genuine controversy.
The second Ashwander rule dictates that the Court will not anticipate or decide a constitutional law question before it is absolutely necessary to resolve the case.
Answer: True
Explanation: The second Ashwander rule dictates that the Court will not anticipate or decide a constitutional law question before it is absolutely necessary to resolve the case.
The third Ashwander rule states that the Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than what is required by the precise facts of the case.
Answer: True
Explanation: The third Ashwander rule states that the Court will not formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than what is required by the precise facts of the case.
The fourth Ashwander rule mandates that the Court will not decide a constitutional question if another ground, such as statutory construction, exists upon which the case can be resolved.
Answer: True
Explanation: The fourth Ashwander rule mandates that the Court will not decide a constitutional question if another ground, such as statutory construction, exists upon which the case can be resolved.
The fifth Ashwander rule states that the Court will not pass upon a statute's validity if the complainant cannot demonstrate injury from its operation.
Answer: True
Explanation: The fifth Ashwander rule states that the Court will not pass upon a statute's validity if the complainant cannot demonstrate injury from its operation.
The 'chilling effect' doctrine serves as an exception to the fifth Ashwander rule, not the sixth.
Answer: False
Explanation: The 'chilling effect' doctrine serves as an exception to the fifth Ashwander rule, not the sixth.
The sixth Ashwander rule stipulates that the Court will not consider the constitutionality of a statute when challenged by someone who has already taken advantage of its benefits.
Answer: True
Explanation: The sixth Ashwander rule stipulates that the Court will not consider the constitutionality of a statute when challenged by someone who has already taken advantage of its benefits.
The seventh Ashwander rule emphasizes that when constitutional doubts arise, the Court will first seek a reasonable interpretation of the statute that avoids the constitutional issue.
Answer: True
Explanation: The seventh Ashwander rule emphasizes that when constitutional doubts arise, the Court will first seek a reasonable interpretation of the statute that avoids the constitutional issue.
The primary goal of the Ashwander rules is to promote judicial self-restraint by enabling the Court to avoid making constitutional rulings whenever possible.
Answer: True
Explanation: The primary goal of the Ashwander rules is to promote judicial self-restraint by enabling the Court to avoid making constitutional rulings whenever possible.
The Ashwander rules are a set of principles designed to limit the Court's involvement in constitutional adjudication by avoiding constitutional questions when possible.
Answer: True
Explanation: The Ashwander rules are a set of principles designed to limit the Court's involvement in constitutional adjudication by avoiding constitutional questions when possible.
The seventh Ashwander rule suggests that courts should seek a reasonable interpretation of a statute to avoid constitutional issues whenever possible.
Answer: True
Explanation: The seventh Ashwander rule suggests that courts should seek a reasonable interpretation of a statute to avoid constitutional issues whenever possible.
What is the primary purpose of the Ashwander rules? To guide the Supreme Court in avoiding constitutional questions when cases can be resolved on other grounds.
Answer: To guide the Supreme Court in avoiding constitutional questions when cases can be resolved on other grounds.
Explanation: The primary purpose of the Ashwander rules is to guide the Supreme Court in avoiding constitutional questions when cases can be resolved on statutory or other non-constitutional grounds.
Which Ashwander rule states that the Court will not decide a constitutional question if another ground, like statutory construction, exists? The fourth rule.
Answer: The fourth rule
Explanation: The fourth Ashwander rule specifies that the Court will not decide a constitutional question if the case can be resolved on statutory construction or another non-constitutional ground.
The 'chilling effect' doctrine serves as an exception to which Ashwander rule? The fifth rule (complainant injury).
Answer: The fifth rule (complainant injury)
Explanation: The 'chilling effect' doctrine functions as an exception to the fifth Ashwander rule, which typically requires a complainant to demonstrate direct injury.
What does the seventh Ashwander rule emphasize regarding statutory interpretation? Seeking a reasonable interpretation of a statute to avoid constitutional issues.
Answer: Seeking a reasonable interpretation of a statute to avoid constitutional issues.
Explanation: The seventh Ashwander rule emphasizes the importance of seeking a reasonable interpretation of a statute to avoid constitutional issues whenever possible.
What is the primary goal of the Ashwander rules for the U.S. Supreme Court? To promote judicial self-restraint by avoiding constitutional rulings when possible.
Answer: To promote judicial self-restraint by avoiding constitutional rulings when possible.
Explanation: The primary goal of the Ashwander rules for the U.S. Supreme Court is to promote judicial self-restraint by avoiding constitutional rulings whenever feasible.
The Ashwander rules were articulated by Justice Louis D. Brandeis in his: Concurring opinion in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority.
Answer: Concurring opinion in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority.
Explanation: The Ashwander rules were articulated by Justice Louis D. Brandeis in his concurring opinion in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority.
The sixth Ashwander rule prevents a court from considering the constitutionality of a statute when challenged by someone who: Has already taken advantage of its benefits.
Answer: Has already taken advantage of its benefits.
Explanation: The sixth Ashwander rule prevents a court from considering a statute's constitutionality when challenged by an individual who has already benefited from its provisions.
Judicial restraint generally implies a focus on the literal text of the law, rather than a broad interpretation of its underlying purpose or 'spirit'.
Answer: True
Explanation: Judicial restraint generally implies a focus on the literal text of the law, rather than a broad interpretation of its underlying purpose or 'spirit'.
Under judicial restraint, courts often favor a plain meaning interpretation of a statute, adhering strictly to the text.
Answer: True
Explanation: Under judicial restraint, courts often favor a plain meaning interpretation of a statute, adhering strictly to the text.
The 'mischief rule' in statutory interpretation involves interpreting a statute to address the specific problem or 'mischief' it was intended to remedy.
Answer: True
Explanation: The 'mischief rule' in statutory interpretation involves interpreting a statute to address the specific problem or 'mischief' it was intended to remedy.
The 'golden rule' of statutory interpretation allows for deviations from the literal meaning of a statute to avoid absurd or unjust results.
Answer: True
Explanation: The 'golden rule' of statutory interpretation allows for deviations from the literal meaning of a statute to avoid absurd or unjust results.
Judicial restraint generally encourages courts to interpret statutes based on their literal text, rather than their perceived underlying purpose.
Answer: True
Explanation: Judicial restraint generally encourages courts to interpret statutes based on their literal text, rather than their perceived underlying purpose.
What does the 'golden rule' of statutory interpretation suggest? Statutes should be interpreted to avoid absurd or unjust results, allowing minor deviations from literal meaning.
Answer: Statutes should be interpreted to avoid absurd or unjust results, allowing minor deviations from literal meaning.
Explanation: The 'golden rule' of statutory interpretation suggests that statutes should be interpreted to avoid absurd or unjust outcomes, permitting minor deviations from the literal text if necessary.
How might judicial restraint influence a court's approach to statutory interpretation, specifically regarding the 'plain meaning rule'? It leads courts to favor a plain meaning interpretation, adhering strictly to the text.
Answer: It leads courts to favor a plain meaning interpretation, adhering strictly to the text.
Explanation: Judicial restraint, when applied to statutory interpretation via the 'plain meaning rule,' leads courts to favor adherence to the strict, literal text of the statute.
A 'political question,' within the framework of judicial restraint, is an issue that a court deems more appropriately resolved by the legislative or executive branches, rather than the judiciary.
Answer: True
Explanation: A 'political question,' within the framework of judicial restraint, is an issue that a court deems more appropriately resolved by the legislative or executive branches, rather than the judiciary.
In South Carolina v. Gathers, Justice Byron White's decision not to overrule a previous case (Booth v. Maryland) is cited as an example of judicial restraint, not activism.
Answer: False
Explanation: In South Carolina v. Gathers, Justice Byron White's decision not to overrule a previous case (Booth v. Maryland) is cited as an example of judicial restraint, not activism.
Justice Antonin Scalia argued that judges should be free to overturn decisions they believe are not supported by the Constitution, rather than being strictly bound by prior precedents.
Answer: False
Explanation: Justice Antonin Scalia argued that judges should be free to overturn decisions they believe are not supported by the Constitution, rather than being strictly bound by prior precedents.
Roe v. Wade is frequently cited as an example of judicial activism, not judicial restraint.
Answer: False
Explanation: Roe v. Wade is frequently cited as an example of judicial activism, not judicial restraint.
Vacco v. Quill is considered an example of judicial restraint because the court upheld a state law and avoided establishing a new constitutional precedent.
Answer: True
Explanation: Vacco v. Quill is considered an example of judicial restraint because the court upheld a state law and avoided establishing a new constitutional precedent.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is recognized as an early proponent of judicial restraint, having articulated its importance in his writings.
Answer: True
Explanation: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is recognized as an early proponent of judicial restraint, having articulated its importance in his writings.
Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter was described by one writer as a model of judicial restraint, not judicial activism.
Answer: False
Explanation: Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter was described by one writer as a model of judicial restraint, not judicial activism.
William Rehnquist, as Chief Justice, was acknowledged as an advocate of judicial restraint, despite his Court overturning some precedents from the Warren Court era.
Answer: True
Explanation: William Rehnquist, as Chief Justice, was acknowledged as an advocate of judicial restraint, despite his Court overturning some precedents from the Warren Court era.
Lewis F. Powell Jr. analyzed that the rate of overruling decisions was fairly constant between the Warren and Burger Courts, suggesting a degree of consistency in judicial practice.
Answer: False
Explanation: Lewis F. Powell Jr. analyzed that the rate of overruling decisions was fairly constant between the Warren and Burger Courts, suggesting a degree of consistency in judicial practice.
The nondelegation doctrine generally prevents legislative bodies from delegating their core powers to other branches.
Answer: True
Explanation: The nondelegation doctrine generally prevents legislative bodies from delegating their core powers to other branches.
What is the definition of a 'political question' in the context of judicial restraint? A matter the court deems better suited for resolution by the executive or legislative branches.
Answer: A matter the court deems better suited for resolution by the executive or legislative branches.
Explanation: In the context of judicial restraint, a 'political question' is defined as an issue that a court considers more appropriately addressed by the executive or legislative branches of government.
In South Carolina v. Gathers, Justice Byron White's action is cited as an example of judicial restraint because he: Declined to overrule an established precedent.
Answer: Declined to overrule an established precedent.
Explanation: Justice Byron White's action in South Carolina v. Gathers, declining to overrule an established precedent, is presented as an instance of judicial restraint.
Justice Antonin Scalia's stance, as described in the source, differed from judicial restraint by advocating for: Courts to be free to overturn decisions believed to be unsupported by the Constitution.
Answer: Courts to be free to overturn decisions believed to be unsupported by the Constitution.
Explanation: Justice Antonin Scalia's position advocated for judicial freedom to overturn decisions deemed unsupported by the Constitution, diverging from the strict adherence to precedent often associated with judicial restraint.
Roe v. Wade is often characterized as an example of judicial activism, while subsequent cases like Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt have shown: Judicial restraint by ruling in line with precedent or issuing narrow decisions.
Answer: Judicial restraint by ruling in line with precedent or issuing narrow decisions.
Explanation: While Roe v. Wade is often seen as judicial activism, cases like Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt have demonstrated judicial restraint by adhering to precedent or issuing narrow rulings.
The case of Vacco v. Quill is cited as an example of judicial restraint because the court: Upholding a state law and avoiding setting a new precedent.
Answer: Upholding a state law and avoiding setting a new precedent.
Explanation: Vacco v. Quill exemplifies judicial restraint as the court upheld a state law and deliberately avoided establishing a new constitutional precedent.
Who is identified as an early proponent of judicial restraint, and where did they articulate these ideas? Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Answer: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Explanation: Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. is identified as an early proponent of judicial restraint, having articulated its principles in his writings.
Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt, is described as: A model of judicial restraint.
Answer: A model of judicial restraint.
Explanation: Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, appointed by President Franklin Roosevelt, was characterized as a model of judicial restraint.
Lewis F. Powell Jr.'s analysis of the Warren and Burger Courts suggested that the rate of overruling decisions was: Fairly constant between the two courts.
Answer: Fairly constant between the two courts.
Explanation: Lewis F. Powell Jr.'s comparison indicated that the rate of overruling decisions was fairly constant between the Warren and Burger Courts.
Under judicial restraint, how might a court approach the 'nondelegation doctrine'? By being hesitant to strictly enforce it if it means overturning significant governmental operations.
Answer: By being hesitant to strictly enforce it if it means overturning significant governmental operations.
Explanation: Judicial restraint might lead a court to be hesitant in strictly enforcing the nondelegation doctrine if doing so would overturn significant governmental operations.
What is the core idea behind 'rule according to higher law' in relation to judicial interpretation? Decisions should align with fundamental moral or natural laws.
Answer: Decisions should align with fundamental moral or natural laws.
Explanation: The core idea behind 'rule according to higher law' is that judicial interpretations should align with fundamental moral or natural laws.
Which statement accurately reflects the comparison made by Lewis F. Powell Jr. regarding the Warren and Burger Courts? The rate of overruling decisions was fairly constant between the two courts.
Answer: The rate of overruling decisions was fairly constant between the two courts.
Explanation: Lewis F. Powell Jr.'s comparison indicated that the rate of overruling decisions was fairly constant between the Warren and Burger Courts.