Question

To learn about judicial activism and restraint In a short paragraph

Answer 1

Judicial activism and judicial restraint are opposite approaches judges use when interpreting the law: activism describes judges who are willing to interpret the constitution or statutes broadly, overturn legislative or executive actions, and sometimes create new legal principles to address injustices or social change; restraint describes judges who defer to elected branches, limit themselves to the text, precedent, and narrow rulings, and avoid making policy from the bench. Activists argue courts must protect minority rights and correct democratic failures, while restraint proponents argue legitimacy and stability come from leaving policy choices to legislatures. In practice judges mix both approaches depending on the case, and the debate centers on balancing democratic accountability with protection of constitutional rights.