Judicial activism typically means that judges are more willing to interpret the Constitution and laws in a way that may change or influence public policy, often stepping in when they believe other branches of government are not acting in the best interest of justice or when fundamental rights are at stake.
Among the options provided, the most accurate response is:
The court will rule on the actions of the other branches or judicial precedent.
This reflects the idea that in cases of judicial activism, the court actively engages with issues and decisions from other branches of government, sometimes overruling or challenging established precedents in pursuit of broader interpretations of rights or justice.