What role does judicial philosophy play in the nomination process?

Answer:

An ideal response will:
1. Discuss how differences in constitutional interpretation can produce vastly different outcomes on the same legal question; presidents and senators want to know how candidates see the appropriate role of the courts.
2. Explain that a proponent of judicial restraint would propose that judges should strike down the actions of the elected branches only if they clearly violate the Constitution; it would be appropriate for the courts to strike down popularly enacted legislation only when it violates the letter of the Constitution.
3. Explain that a proponent of judicial activism would propose that judges can freely strike down laws enacted by the democratically elected branches; the candidate would believe that the courts should strike down acts of the elected branches if they violate broad norms and values that might not be explicitly stated in the Constitution.
4. Describe that at the heart of this debate are competing conceptions of the proper balance between government authority and individual rights, and the power of democratically accountable legislatures and unelected judges.