Final answer:
Judicial restraint is a legal philosophy where judges defer policymaking to legislative bodies, respect precedent, and interpret the Constitution based on its original meaning, as opposed to judicial activism, which involves broader constitutional interpretation to address social changes.
Step-by-step explanation:
A judicial philosophy where judges play a minimal role in policymaking and leave those decisions strictly to the legislature is known as judicial restraint. Proponents of judicial restraint advocate for a judiciary that is cautious in striking down laws and defers to the legislature unless a law is obviously unconstitutional.
Judges who practice judicial restraint often respect stare decisis, adhere to precedent, and may interpret the Constitution according to what they believe was its original meaning. Under judicial restraint, the courts typically avoid getting involved with politics or policymaking, which they see as the responsibility of the elected branches of government.
Instead, they focus on interpreting laws and upholding established legal precedents. Judicial restraint is sometimes contrasted with judicial activism, where judges are more likely to interpret the Constitution in a broader manner, often in the context of changing social values and the expansion of individual rights.