Final answer:
A Supreme Court justice practicing judicial activism uses rulings to articulate new policies, particularly when other branches do not act, and sees the Constitution as a living document. This contrasts with judicial restraint, where justices defer to elected branches and adhere closely to historical interpretations of the Constitution.
Step-by-step explanation:
A Supreme Court justice who believes that the Court has a responsibility to use its rulings to articulate new policy when other branches fail to do so is practicing judicial activism. This judicial philosophy supports the idea that justices should use their power to broaden personal liberty, justice, and equality, and act in cases where they perceive that legislative or executive actions infringe on individual rights. Judicial activism is often associated with a loose constructionist interpretation of the Constitution, seeing it as a living document that should be applied in response to contemporary societal needs and changes.
Conversely, judicial restraint advocates for deference to the elected branches (legislative and executive), limiting the courts' role to a narrower interpretation of the Constitution. Justices practicing judicial restraint shy away from invalidating laws and define some issues as political questions beyond the judiciary's scope. They rely heavily on precedent and the original meanings of the Constitution as understood at the time it was written.