Judicial restraint is considered preferable in judicial activism vs judicial restraint since the elected officials play a primary role in policymaking. In basic, judicial restraint does not have a consistent normative value. The courts are improperly deferential to the legislators and executives that might take and excessively constrain democratic self-governance. There are many circumstances in history when judicial restraint examples were set. The defense of human rights requires judicial assertiveness and restrained courts decline to interfere in the infringement of these rights.