Talk:Judicial restraint

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Judicial restraint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070822163949/http://www.bartleby.com/59/14/judicialrest.html to http://www.bartleby.com/59/14/judicialrest.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120120224830/http://articles.cnn.com/2005-09-03/justice/rehnquist.legacy_1_william-hubbs-rehnquist-judicial-legacy-supreme-court?_s=PM%3ALAW to http://articles.cnn.com/2005-09-03/justice/rehnquist.legacy_1_william-hubbs-rehnquist-judicial-legacy-supreme-court?_s=PM%3ALAW

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

"Respecting stare decisis"

The article states unequivocally that "Judicially restrained judges respect stare decisis", which is a sourced to a Time article that is behind a paywall. This doesn't make much sense to me. If a previous decision was based in judicial activism, surely a judge who believed in judicial restraint would want to overturn it? Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

One judge that believed in judicial restraint would seek to overturn a precious decision on the grounds that it was "judicial activism"? Surly not! If it were a decision he believed were activism, and he believed in restraint, he (probably) would not have ruled such way to begin with; but if it been becomes established law, a judge who (especially if it is one judge) overturns it the first chance he gets, how can one possibly call that "restraint"? Restraint means that you don't take an action; it doesn't mean that you take action to reverse another past action because you think that action ought to have been restrained. (Within reason, of course, if there was some outrageous decision that was unquestionably wrong, even one who strictly believed in restraint may still overturn it).

As a caveat, though, what is "judicial activism" is usually in the eye of an opponent. Meaning, they use cries of "activism" as an easy go-to criticism for things they have no other arguments against other than they just don't like it. When it suits their own agenda, they'll partake in activism without even blinking. They can't have it both ways, even they're all activists or none of them are. For a good many years, it seemed like, Sandra Day O'Connor was the only non-activist on the US Supreme Court, and I've seen more judgements from that era that were authored by her, where four of the other justices agreed with only part of her opinion and the other four agreeing with the other parts, with nobody agreeing or concurring with her opinion in full, yet it was the opinion handed down (often those decisions were precluded from setting any binding precedent on future cases though). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:BD9C:7484:82F9:9D21 (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Contradiction with reputable sources

I find this article to be highly contradictory with existing reputable sources. Compare the content of this article with the content of the corresponding Encyclopedia Britannica article. In the context of Roe v Wade, the Wikipedia article would suggest that the Supreme Court upholding Roe would be judicial restraint, whereas most other reputable sources (e.g. Britannica) would imply that overturning Roe would be judicial restraint, since it would be the Court deferring to Congress on abortion policy, such as the Women's Health Protection Act (which has passed the House and will be voted on in the Senate). My gut feeling is that this Wikipedia article is pretty far off base in terms of the true meaning of judicial restraint. To quote from the Britannica article, judicial restraint "urges judges considering constitutional questions to grant substantial deference to the views of the elected branches." --Westwind273 (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)