What does "judicial restraint" advocate for in the context of court decisions?

Judicial restraint advocates for deference to elected government branches, emphasizing that courts should be cautious in striking down laws or overriding decisions made by lawmakers. This principle stems from the belief that elected officials, who are directly accountable to the electorate, are better positioned to make policy decisions reflecting the will of the people.

Judicial restraint does not support the idea of judicial intervention in political matters, as that would lead to judges making rulings based on their interpretations rather than adhering to the principle of allowing legislative bodies to operate within their constitutional authority. Moreover, it contrasts with the notion of actively interpreting the Constitution or promoting societal changes through rulings, which suggest a more activist approach where the judiciary takes an expansive role in instigating reforms or directly influencing policy. Thus, the core tenet of judicial restraint is a commitment to respecting the decisions made by the legislative and executive branches, reinforcing the separation of powers and the democratic process.