If someone is an advocate of the philosophy of judicial restraint, he or she believes question 4 options: that the meaning of the law tends to evolve over time. in looking only at the words of the constitution in order to understand its meaning. that the court should beware of overturning the judgments of popularly elected legislatures. the court should go beyond the words of the constitution or a statute to consider the broader societal implications of its decisions. that judges should consider legal questions rather than deciding political matters.

Question

Scarlet Levy

Social Studies

28 April, 00:10

If someone is an advocate of the philosophy of judicial restraint, he or she believes question 4 options: that the meaning of the law tends to evolve over time. in looking only at the words of the constitution in order to understand its meaning. that the court should beware of overturning the judgments of popularly elected legislatures. the court should go beyond the words of the constitution or a statute to consider the broader societal implications of its decisions. that judges should consider legal questions rather than deciding political matters.

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Mendez · Answer 1

If someone is an advocate of the philosophy of judicial restraint, he or she believes "in looking only at the words of the Constitution in order to understand its meaning."

Judicial restraint is a theory of legal elucidation that urges judges to restrain the activity of their own power. It declares that judges should falter to strike down laws unless they are clearly illegal, however what considers clearly unlawful is itself a matter of some verbal confrontation.