Given the main elements of judicial restraint and also given the idea of judicial interpretation, do you think courts are generally able to balance the two rules for the appropriate role of the judiciary noted above? Are there times when courts should defer to more democratic institutions? Are there times when courts should play a role in defining the law? Defend your answer by articulating what you think to be the case and whether democracy ought to be able to live with judicial review.
A. Judicial interpretation is when the judicial activists interpret the Constitution of a state to support contemporary values. Judicial restraint confines the authorities of judges to strike down a law. Therefore, the court can balance the two rules since it ought to uphold all laws and acts.
B. During legislation to ensure that popular masses cannot permit laws that harm or take unjustifiable advantage of unpopular minorities.
C. Courts observe the doctrine of precedent in creating, building, and defining a law. The aim is to ensure that human beings in the same situations receive similar treatment.