Which argument would be made by an advocate for the Supreme Court playing a more aggressive policymaking role?

Which argument would be made by an advocate for the Supreme Court playing a more aggressive policymaking role?

• A. The judiciary should leave policymaking to the elected branches.
• B. Judicial decisions should be made by Congress when practical and by the president when necessary.
• C. The judiciary can look out for the needs of the powerless whose interests are seldom met by the rest of government.
• D. The judiciary should stick to settling routine disputes.

Answer: (C)

The idea being tested is judicial activism—the belief that courts should use their power to shape public policy and protect rights, especially when other branches fail to address injustices. An advocate for a more aggressive Court argues that the judiciary can look out for the needs of the powerless, whose interests are seldom met by the rest of government. This view holds that constitutional interpretation should actively safeguard vulnerable groups and push for policy changes, rather than waiting for Congress or the president to act. Historical examples often cited include decisions that desegregated schools or protected minority rights, showing how the Court can be a policy-making force when the political process falls short. The other options reflect restraint or a formal division of labor that would keep the Court out of policy decision-making, which is why they don’t fit as well.

The idea being tested is judicial activism—the belief that courts should use their power to shape public policy and protect rights, especially when other branches fail to address injustices. An advocate for a more aggressive Court argues that the judiciary can look out for the needs of the powerless, whose interests are seldom met by the rest of government. This view holds that constitutional interpretation should actively safeguard vulnerable groups and push for policy changes, rather than waiting for Congress or the president to act. Historical examples often cited include decisions that desegregated schools or protected minority rights, showing how the Court can be a policy-making force when the political process falls short. The other options reflect restraint or a formal division of labor that would keep the Court out of policy decision-making, which is why they don’t fit as well.