Final answer:
Judges are allowed personal and extrajudicial activities, but must maintain independence for their official duties. Their personal beliefs and judicial philosophy, ranging from judicial activism to restraint, influence court decisions and interpretation of the Constitution.
Step-by-step explanation:
Judicial Activities and Court Power
Judges are encouraged to engage in personal and extrajudicial activities but must do so in a manner that upholds the independence and integrity required to carry out their judicial duties. Court power is limited to rulings in cases that the courts decide to hear.
The judicial philosophy of a justice plays a significant role in their decision-making process. Justices bring their own personal beliefs and political attitudes to the bench, which can influence judicial decisions, although it's expected that they follow the Constitution and the law despite their policy preferences.
There is a distinction between judicial activism and judicial restraint. Justices who believe in judicial activism tend to use their judicial power to defend individual rights and liberties, potentially even broadening these rights.
On the other hand, justices adhering to judicial restraint are more likely to defer policy decisions to elected branches of government, focusing on a narrower interpretation of the Bill of Rights, and are less inclined to label actions or laws as unconstitutional.
The controversy surrounding judicial activism is tied to the perception that it exceeds the judiciary's scope, potentially compromising the separation of powers. Critics argue that activist judges may strike down laws for personal reasons, rather than purely legal ones.
On the other hand, the concept of an activist court is often a subjective judgment based on whether one agrees with the court's decisions. Furthermore, judges are expected to balance impartiality with competence, reflecting the diverse population while remaining qualified to interpret and apply the law.