Compare and contrast judicial restraint and judicial activism by analyzing how a proponent of each would view Roe v. Wade

What will be an ideal response?

An ideal response will:
1, Explain that a proponent of judicial restraint favors narrow interpretation of the Constitution and would only strike down a law that is clearly unconstitutional. Advocates of judicial restraint would argue that the Supreme Court should stand by its ruling.
2, Discuss that advocates of judicial activism would encourage the Court to abandon its previous position, which they would view as legally flawed, and allow more restrictions on a woman's right to have an abortion. Others would claim that Roe v. Wade itself was the product of judicial activism, and that legal restraint would require that the ruling be overturned to honor earlier precedent. A proponent of judicial activism would favor broad constitutional interpretation to promote justice and fairness.