How does judicial activism differ from judicial restraint?

Judicial activism and judicial restraint represent two competing philosophies regarding the role of the judiciary in interpreting law and making decisions that impact public policy. The correct distinction lies in the approach each philosophy takes towards judicial decision-making.

Judicial activism is characterized by a willingness of the courts to go beyond a narrow interpretation of the law, often engaging in policy-making and addressing social issues that may not have been fully resolved by the legislative process. Activist judges may interpret the Constitution and statutes in a way that evolves with contemporary society, potentially leading to decisions that set significant legal precedents and encourage change.

On the other hand, judicial restraint emphasizes a more limited role for the judiciary, advocating for minimal intervention in legislative matters and upholding the decisions of elected officials unless there is a clear constitutional violation. Judges who practice restraint tend to adhere closely to the text of the law and the original intent of the framers, believing that courts should not become involved in policy-making, which is the domain of the legislature.

The other options do not accurately capture the core differences between these two philosophies. Some imply incorrect ideas about their acceptance or scope, which do not fundamentally pertain to the essence of activism versus restraint. Understanding these concepts can clarify the judiciary's function and influence within a democratic