Final answer:
An approach to judicial decision making where a judge compares a constitutional provision with a statute to determine compatibility is known as judicial interpretation. This can involve principles of stare decisis, and may be guided by judicial philosophies such as judicial activism or judicial restraint.
Step-by-step explanation:
An approach to judicial decision making in which a judge sets a constitutional provision alongside a statute to "decide whether the latter squares with the former" is known as judicial interpretation. This process involves assessing the constitutionality of a law and determining whether it violates any constitutional requirements. When interpreting statutes, judges may adhere to the principle of stare decisis, meaning "to stand by the decision" in Latin, whereby they apply precedent, or rulings from previous similar cases, to guide their current decision. Judicial philosophies, such as judicial activism or judicial restraint, play a critical role in how a judge may approach decision-making. Judicial activism entails viewing the constitution as a living document and being responsive to societal changes, whereas judicial restraint emphasizes deference to the legislative branch and adherence to traditional interpretations of the law and long-standing traditions.