In those circumstances, he was almost always convinced that the rule of the Constitution outweighed
the principle of judicial restraint.
And, after all, the Supreme Court may possibly keep faith with the original contract that brought Christians into the republic; seeing what it unleashed with Roe and institutionalized with Casey, it may yet rediscover
the principle of judicial restraint.
So demanding that rulings explicitly spell things out the way you're suggesting sounds kind of like a demand to violate
the principles of Judicial restraint, which isn't going to happen.
Not exact matches
Whether one views constitutional interpretation as grounded in a theory
of original meaning or the traditional liberal theory
of judicial restraint and neutral
principles, the distinctive nature
of this approach is that it is legal in nature.