Text 1: Legal scholar Dr. Maria Santos defends judicial restraint. "Courts should interpret law, not make it," Santos argues. "When judges import personal values, they usurp legislative authority. Democracy requires elected bodies to determine policy."
Text 2: Constitutional theorist Dr. Robert Kim justifies active judicial review. "Constitutional principles require courts to protect rights legislators might violate," Kim contends. "Majorities can threaten minorities. Judicial independence serves as a necessary check on democratic excess."
Based on the texts, what fundamental tension do Santos and Kim represent?
Between democratic accountability and rights protection
Between state and federal courts
Between criminal and civil law
Between written and oral arguments
Correct Answer: A
Choice A is the correct answer. Santos prioritizes democratic accountability—elected bodies making policy. Kim prioritizes rights protection—courts checking majority overreach. Classic democracy vs. rights tension.
- Evidence: Santos: "elected bodies"; Kim: "protect rights legislators might violate."
- Reasoning: Both values matter; the question is which takes precedence.
- Conclusion: They embody the democratic accountability vs. rights protection tension.
Choice B is incorrect because jurisdictional levels aren't discussed. Choice C is incorrect because neither addresses case types. Choice D is incorrect because argument form isn't relevant.