Supreme Court justices who support judicial activism and those who support judicial restraint most disagree on the answer to which question

Supreme Court justices who support judicial activism and those who support judicial restraint most disagree on the question of how to interpret the Constitution.

Explanation

Interpreting the Constitution is an important job of the Supreme Court justices because it allows them to ensure that the laws and regulations of the United States are being properly upheld. The Constitution is the foundation of our government and the highest law in the land, so it is important that it is interpreted correctly.

Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two different approaches to interpreting the Constitution. Judicial activism believes that the Constitution should be interpreted broadly, allowing the justices to protect individual rights. Judicial restraint believes that the Constitution should be interpreted narrowly, and that judges should only interpret it in its literal sense, without considering its broader implications.

The implications of these two approaches to interpreting the Constitution are far-reaching. Judicial activism allows for greater protection of individual rights, while judicial restraint limits the scope of the Constitution. Judicial activism also allows the justices to shape the law to meet modern needs, while judicial restraint limits the ability of the justices to make changes. Ultimately, the approach a justice takes to interpreting the Constitution can have a significant impact on the laws and regulations of the United States.