Final answer:
A judge who practices deferral to the decisions of elected representatives subscribes to the philosophy of judicial restraint, aiming to maintain the separation of powers and to respect established precedent without engaging in judicial activism.
Step-by-step explanation:
A judge who believes in deferring to the decisions of elected representatives believes in judicial restraint. This term reflects a judicial philosophy that emphasizes the limited role of the courts in government, advocating for a conservative approach to interpreting laws and the Constitution.
Judges who practice judicial restraint are more likely to uphold existing laws and precedents, avoiding involvement in policy-making and instead, deferring to the legislative and executive branches. This contrasts with judicial activism, where judges may interpret the Constitution more broadly to address contemporary societal changes and may overturn legislative and executive decisions to protect individual rights and liberties.
Judicial restraint is associated with respect for the separation of powers and the principle of stare decisis, which urges courts to adhere to precedent. Notably, the approach does not encourage the courts to create new policies but rather to interpret the Constitution as closely as possible to its original understanding at the time of its framing.