Final answer:
The view that the Constitution's language justifies vigorously protecting individual rights through judicial interpretation aligns with judicial activism, which allows for broader judicial interpretation and sometimes policy-making from the bench.
Step-by-step explanation:
The contention that the Constitution contains moral language that justifies the vigorous protection of individual rights by the judiciary is a view compatible with judicial activism. This philosophy is characterized by a willingness of judges to interpret the Constitution in ways that may extend individual rights and liberties, sometimes overturning legislative actions or establishing new legal norms. Notable examples of judicial activism include the Supreme Court's decisions in cases like Roe v. Wade, where they found a right to privacy that the Constitution does not explicitly guarantee. Proponents of this view often see the Constitution as a living document, intended to be interpreted in light of contemporary values and social conditions.
In contrast, judicial restraint embodies the opposing view, which urges judges to avoid making policy decisions and instead leave such matters to the other branches of government or the voters. It is associated with a more conservative philosophy of sticking to what proponents believe was the original intent of the framers of the Constitution, often leading to narrower interpretations of the text and adherence to precedent.