Final answer:
The judicial decision-making approach where judges base their rulings purely on legal grounds and set their values aside is known as judicial restraint. This philosophy emphasizes adherence to precedent, constitutionality, and deference to the other government branches, contrasting with judicial activism.
Step-by-step explanation:
The view of judicial decision making in which judges set aside their own values and make decisions based solely on legal criteria is called judicial restraint. Judges who practice judicial restraint adhere to a philosophy where they limit their power and avoid substituting their own policy preferences for those outlined by the legislative and executive branches.
When faced with constitutional questions, they prefer to uphold established precedents unless laws are clearly unconstitutional and respect the boundaries set by the separation of powers.
Advocates of judicial restraint strive to interpret laws based on the original meaning perceived at the time the laws were written, demonstrating deference to historical traditions and the decisions of Congress. This judicial approach is contrasted with the concept of judicial activism, where judges are more willing to strike down laws and expand individual liberties based on their own policy views. However, judges' personal beliefs and political attitudes often influence their decision-making to some extent, serving as a backdrop to their legal interpretations.