Final answer:
Judicial activism involves judges incorporating their personal values into legal interpretations, which contrasts with judicial restraint where interpretations adhere closely to the original text of laws and the Constitution.
Step-by-step explanation:
Judges who interject their own values into their interpretations of the law are practicing what is often referred to as judicial activism. This approach involves judges making decisions that reflect their personal beliefs or policy preferences, potentially leading to broadening personal liberty, justice, and equality. This practice is opposed to judicial restraint, where judges adhere closely to the original meanings of the Constitution and laws without imposing their own policy views.
It is worth noting that judicial activism is often associated with loose constructionism, where the Constitution is seen as a living document that evolves with societal changes. In contrast, judicial restraint is closely tied to strict constructionism, where a narrower interpretation based on the original understanding of the legal texts is favored. Judicial philosophies are varied, and judges' ruling styles can also be influenced by their political ideologies, although ideally, they should follow the Constitution and laws without regard to personal preferences.