Final answer:
An 'activist' court is more proactive in defending individual rights and may interpret the law to extend beyond its original text, while a court demonstrating 'judicial restraint' tends to uphold existing laws and defers more to other branches of government. Judicial activism is controversial because it can appear as though judges are making policy, which is traditionally the domain of the legislature.
Step-by-step explanation:
Difference Between Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint
When a court is described as being activist, it means that the judges or justices are more likely to use judicial power to broaden personal liberty, justice, and equality.
They aim to defend individual rights and liberties by stopping actions and laws by other branches of government that infringe on these rights. A court described in this way often makes decisions that may seem to create policy or extend the Constitution beyond its original or plain text meanings.
Conversely, a court showing judicial restraint tends to defer decision-making to the elected branches of government, like the legislature and the executive.
Judges adhering to this philosophy exercise caution in striking down laws, doing so only when they are blatantly unconstitutional. They focus on a narrower interpretation of the Bill of Rights and place great emphasis on following established legal precedents (stare decisis).
Judicial philosophy influences how judges respond to cases that help shape public policy. Judicial activism is controversial because it is seen by some as judges overstepping their boundaries and creating policy rather than merely interpreting the law.
Judicial restraint, paired with strict constructionism, involves a literal interpretation of the Constitution and avoiding the use of judicial review to make new laws. Both philosophies can sometimes blur, as evidenced by cases where the Supreme Court strikes down laws based on a conservative or liberal rationale.