Difference between Judicial activism and Judicial restraint
             Our American judiciary branch of the federal government has contributed and molded our American beliefs in this great nation. This branch of government is respected because of the code of conduct that the judges, no matter how conservative or liberal. The language of the court as well as the uniform of the cloaks that judges wear has most probably contributed towards this widespread respect. Throughout the history of the United States, I noticed a pattern of "cause and effect" that our judiciary branch had practiced. I noticed that the judicial branch usually restrain themselves from involving in critical civil policy, but will be active when the time comes when the general public, in which the case is decided, feels a change is needed. We have enough evidence to see how our judicial branch should act. Should the judicial branch be more active towards shaping American policy or restrain as long as possible before being forced to act upon very critical civil policies?
             Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court should be an active and creative partner with the legislative and executive branches in shaping government policy (Wasserman American Politics 138). The believers of this philosophical view of how our judicial branch should be suggest that the Supreme Court more active and participate in molding the policies of American society. It can be argued that during the end of the Civil War and the "Separate but Equal" era, in cases such as the Brown v. Board of Education, Baker v. Carr, Missouri ex. Rel. Gaines v. Canada, and Sweatt v. Painter. The more recent, Bush v. Gore case is a fine example of judicial activism.
             Judicial Restraint, on the other hand, is the idea that the Court should not impose its views on other branches of the government or the states unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution (Wasserman American Po...