Final answer:
Judicial activism describes judges who interpret the Constitution more loosely to adapt to societal changes and protect individual rights, sometimes impacting public policy, as opposed to judicial restraint, where judges defer more to the elected government.
Step-by-step explanation:
The idea of judicial activism refers to the philosophy wherein judges exhibit a looser interpretation of the Constitution and are willing to strike down laws and take actions that expand individual liberty, justice, and equality, stepping beyond the traditional role of jurists and sometimes influencing public policy. Judges who practice judicial activism often view the Constitution as a living document that must adapt to contemporary societal changes.
Critics label such actions as judicial activism when they disagree with the decisions, while defenders might argue that these actions protect individual rights against other branches of government that could be infringing upon them. Regardless of perspective, judicial activism often contrasts with judicial restraint, where judges are more likely to defer to the elected branches of government and adhere to a stricter interpretation of the law. An example of judicial activism is when the Supreme Court found an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution and used it to overturn state laws, such as with the Roe v. Wade decision.