Final answer:
Judicial restraint emphasizes adherence to the Constitution's exact text and deference to legislative power, while judicial activism supports a broader role for the judiciary in protecting individual rights and adapting laws to changes in society. Both can be controversial and are subject to interpretation depending on one's perspective on the judiciary's role.
Step-by-step explanation:
The debate between judicial restraint and judicial activism concerns the extent of the courts' role in shaping law. Proponents of judicial restraint urge caution in the exercise of judicial power, promoting adherence to the exact words of the Constitution and deferring policy-making to the legislative and executive branches. They aim to uphold precedent and are hesitant to deem laws unconstitutional unless they clearly contradict the Constitution's text.
In contrast, advocates for judicial activism support a more expansive role for the judiciary, sometimes using their powers to promote individual rights and liberties. A judge with an activist perspective may interpret the Constitution more broadly to adapt to changes in society, invoking concepts like a 'living Constitution.' This approach sometimes leads to rulings that restrict state powers and expand personal freedoms, which can be controversial as it may be perceived as overstepping the judiciary's remit and encroaching on the powers of other branches of government.
While judicial activism is often equated with liberal decisions, it can also manifest in conservative rulings, such as cases limiting federal power in favor of state sovereignty. Both approaches can be seen as controversial depending on one's perspective on the role of the judiciary and the interpretation of the Constitution.