As we increasingly rely on our justice system to protect the rights of citizens in the United States, we must revisit the concepts of judicial restraint versus that of judicial activism. The concept of judicial restraint encourages judges to almost “police” themselves when using their judicial powers. According to this concept, we envision judges limiting the exercise of their own power and only using their power if they believe that a law or verdict is unconstitutional (Kemic, 2004). The question we then encountered is whether this is truly unconstitutional, because it shows that there are varying views on this as well. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essayWhen we analyze the differences between judicial restraint and judicial activism, we are indeed confronted with completely opposite phenomena. Judicial activism is the interpretation of the Constitution, where judicial deference limits the power a judge has to strike down a law, and is based on facts without interpretation. Under judicial restraint, judges enforce the law and do not overturn anything unless it is found to be unconstitutional. Judicial activism has a great influence on social policies that have become increasingly prevalent in our society today. In judicial activism, judges have the power to overturn decisions and laws when constitutional bodies appear not to be acting appropriately. By analyzing the records and decisions issued under Justices Sotomayor and Thomas, we find a perfect balance between judicial activism through Justice Sotomayor and judicial restraint through Justice Thomas. These two people, while working for the same common goal, have two very different approaches that helped them get appointed to the Supreme Court because it would balance the panel and is supposed to help achieve outcomes on decisions that were necessary to continue to advance decisions and keep society at large satisfied with existing laws and governments.