Final answer:
Judicial restraint is a philosophy that encourages judges to limit their power and defer to the policy judgments of the legislative and executive branches, respecting the principle of separation of powers and democratic governance.
Step-by-step explanation:
Judicial Restraint and Policy Judgments
Judicial restraint encourages deference to the policy judgments of elected branches of government. This legal philosophy argues for limited judicial intervention in the policymaking process, respecting the roles of the legislative and executive branches. Judges who adhere to judicial restraint tend to avoid overturning laws unless they are clearly unconstitutional and prefer to interpret the Constitution based on original understanding at the time it was written. By practicing restraint, the courts acknowledge their role in a balanced system of government and highlight the importance of democracy and the separation of powers.
In contrast to judicial restraint, judicial activism represents a more proactive approach in which judges may interpret the law in broader terms, often expanding individual rights and liberties. This approach can lead to judges overruling legislative or executive actions they deem as infringing upon these rights. Judicial activism can influence public policy as much as legislative enactments can.
Understanding that judges can also be policymakers through their decisions, which have significant impacts on public policy, underlines the importance of their philosophical leanings. A judge's decision, infused with personal, ideological, or political beliefs, can shape American legal and social landscapes significantly. The entire judiciary holds this delicate balance of acting as an interpreter of laws while sometimes delineating the contours of policy.