How does judicial activism differ from judicial restraint?

Judicial activism and judicial restraint represent two different philosophies regarding the role of the judiciary in interpreting laws and the Constitution. The correct answer highlights a key distinction: judicial activism encourages a more dynamic and innovative approach to legal interpretation, allowing judges to consider the broader societal implications and needs when making decisions. This philosophy often leads to the expansion of civil rights and the protection of individual liberties, reflecting current values and societal changes.

On the other hand, judicial restraint is characterized by a more conservative approach, urging judges to limit their own power and defer to the legislative branch. Judges who follow this philosophy typically adhere closely to the text of the law and prioritize the intent of the framers over personal or societal considerations. This can result in a more rigid legal interpretation, where change is slow to occur and often reflects established precedent rather than adapting to contemporary values.

Understanding these two concepts helps to clarify ongoing debates within the judicial system, particularly around landmark rulings that shape public policy and individual rights.