The philosophy that courts should defer to elected lawmakers and focus on interpreting law is:

The philosophy that courts should defer to elected lawmakers and focus on interpreting law is:

• A. Judicial restraint
• B. Judicial activism
• C. Strict constructionism
• D. Living Constitution

Answer: (A)

Judicial restraint is the approach where courts stay within the boundaries of the law and defer to elected representatives. Judges interpret statutes and the Constitution as they are written and avoid using their own policy preferences to reshape laws. They intervene only when something is clearly unconstitutional or the text is truly ambiguous, respecting the legislature’s role in making policy. This contrasts with judicial activism, which imagines courts as active policymakers and willing to broaden interpretations to achieve social or political goals. Strict constructionism focuses on the original meanings of constitutional text, which can lead to restraint but isn’t defined by deference to lawmakers. The Living Constitution view treats interpretation as evolving with society, often aligning with a more flexible, less deferential approach.

Judicial restraint is the approach where courts stay within the boundaries of the law and defer to elected representatives. Judges interpret statutes and the Constitution as they are written and avoid using their own policy preferences to reshape laws. They intervene only when something is clearly unconstitutional or the text is truly ambiguous, respecting the legislature’s role in making policy.

This contrasts with judicial activism, which imagines courts as active policymakers and willing to broaden interpretations to achieve social or political goals. Strict constructionism focuses on the original meanings of constitutional text, which can lead to restraint but isn’t defined by deference to lawmakers. The Living Constitution view treats interpretation as evolving with society, often aligning with a more flexible, less deferential approach.