What is the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint?

What is the difference between judicial activism and judicial restraint?

• A. Judicial activism involves following the Constitution's text strictly; restraint expands interpretation.
• B. Judicial activism involves broad interpretation to address social issues; restraint defers to the elected branches and sticks to the Constitution's text.
• C. Judicial activism defers to the Legislative branch; restraint acts independently.
• D. They are unrelated concepts.

Answer: (B)

The difference lies in how judges use the Constitution to shape policy. Judicial activism means interpreting the Constitution in a broad, flexible way to address social issues and expand rights, sometimes stepping beyond the explicit text to remedy perceived injustices. Judicial restraint emphasizes deferring to elected branches and sticking closely to the Constitution’s text and original meaning, avoiding creating policy from the bench unless a clear constitutional violation exists. This aligns with the idea that courts should play a limited, corrective role rather than a proactive policymaking one.

The difference lies in how judges use the Constitution to shape policy. Judicial activism means interpreting the Constitution in a broad, flexible way to address social issues and expand rights, sometimes stepping beyond the explicit text to remedy perceived injustices. Judicial restraint emphasizes deferring to elected branches and sticking closely to the Constitution’s text and original meaning, avoiding creating policy from the bench unless a clear constitutional violation exists. This aligns with the idea that courts should play a limited, corrective role rather than a proactive policymaking one.