Which term describes judges who adhere to the language of the Constitution and avoid broad interpretations?

Which term describes judges who adhere to the language of the Constitution and avoid broad interpretations?

• A. Judicial restraint
• B. Judicial activism
• C. Judicial liberalism
• D. Judicial bypass

Answer: (A)

Judicial restraint is the idea that judges should interpret the Constitution by sticking to its text and the framers’ intent, and avoid reading in broad interpretations or making sweeping policy changes from the bench. This approach defers to elected representatives on policy questions and limits judicial power to clear constitutional violations, rather than expanding rights or reshaping public policy. That’s why it’s the best fit for describing judges who adhere to the language of the Constitution and avoid broad readings. Judicial activism, in contrast, involves broader interpretations and actively shaping public policy through court decisions. Judicial liberalism is typically associated with activist judicial philosophy as well. Judicial bypass isn’t a standard term for a philosophy of interpretation.

Judicial restraint is the idea that judges should interpret the Constitution by sticking to its text and the framers’ intent, and avoid reading in broad interpretations or making sweeping policy changes from the bench. This approach defers to elected representatives on policy questions and limits judicial power to clear constitutional violations, rather than expanding rights or reshaping public policy. That’s why it’s the best fit for describing judges who adhere to the language of the Constitution and avoid broad readings.

Judicial activism, in contrast, involves broader interpretations and actively shaping public policy through court decisions. Judicial liberalism is typically associated with activist judicial philosophy as well. Judicial bypass isn’t a standard term for a philosophy of interpretation.