Letting personal feelings into the court Politics in this world, especially the law is one of the most complicated item in this world. The law itself was created in order to reach a balance in solving problems that are happening, this is the reason why courts and judges was made with a main point to create a decision. However, chances are the some law rules that can be a double edged sword for the judges and people. It can benefit and debenefit them at the same time. Which is the Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint. The definition of the Judicial Restraint itself is a term where if a court judges wanted to create a decision, that can be based off from their thoughts and views, or outside from the “guidelines” of the law, it prohibits and limits them from doing so. Forcing them to follow the law and rules (Navelkelar, 2014). This is really useful in order to remove bias and at the same time avoiding any decisions that can create a great chaos for the future cases. If Judicial Restraint did not exist in the first place, “unconstitutional” decisions that will be the root of the chaos of the future cases will be easy to make. …show more content…
Because apparently, if the Judges have given the chance to act from their opinions and logic, most likely it will be filled with bias or personal opinion that can be wrong, or being unlogical for certain people. Not to mention that one way of problem solving means does not mean it can be applied to other problems; every cases are unique and different; having their own ways to solve. Of course, some poeple would say that there will be some time where people need to go with our common sense and human moral on problem solving in daily life, while at the same time making people as human, but the “humane” decision can bring a disastrous decision that killed potential lifes, chiefly the Roe v Wade