Final answer:
The doctrine of judicial restraint emphasizes that the judiciary should defer to precedent and the legislature's decisions, adhering to established laws and minimizing their own power. It is characterized by a conservative and originalist interpretation of the Constitution, focusing on the intent at the time it was written.
Step-by-step explanation:
According to the doctrine of judicial restraint, the judiciary should A. defer to precedent and to decisions made by the legislature. The concept revolves around the belief that judges should minimize the use of their own power, avoiding striking down laws unless they are clearly unconstitutional. This belief system promotes a conservative interpretation of the law, where the role of the judiciary is not to create policy but to apply the existing laws as written and intended by the legislative and executive branches.
Judicial restraint advocates prioritize stare decisis, meaning they adhere to existing precedents. They approach constitutional law with a strict constructionist perspective, interpreting the Constitution closely based on its original meaning at the time it was written. This philosophy contrasts with judicial activism, where judges may interpret the Constitution more broadly, sometimes creating new policies or legal interpretations.
Supporters of judicial restraint argue that such an approach maintains the integrity of the Constitution and respects the separation of powers by allowing elected representatives, rather than unelected judges, to make policy decisions. This philosophy is also aligned with the views of originalists, who argue that the law should be interpreted based on the original understanding of the founding document.