Answer: The answer is C.
Step-by-step explanation:
Judicial activism refers to a judicial approach where judges are more willing to interpret the law in a way that aligns with their own personal beliefs or political ideologies. It involves an active interpretation of the law to promote or advance certain policy goals or societal changes. In this context, judges may use their authority to shape or influence public policy, even if it goes beyond the original intent of the law or the role traditionally assigned to the judiciary.
It is important to note that the terms "judicial activism" and "judicial restraint" are often used in discussions about the role of the judiciary, but they can be subjective and interpreted differently by different individuals. Judicial restraint, on the other hand, generally refers to an approach where judges show deference to the other branches of government and exercise restraint in interpreting and applying the law, adhering more closely to the original intent of the framers or the text of the law.
It's worth mentioning that the distinction between judicial activism and judicial restraint can be complex, and there is ongoing debate and varying perspectives on the appropriate role of the judiciary in a democratic system.