What does judicial activism refer to?

Judicial activism refers to the tendency of judges to make rulings that reflect their personal opinions or beliefs rather than strictly adhering to the existing laws or the Constitution. This concept is often associated with the idea that judges may interpret laws in a way that promotes social change or addresses perceived injustices, even if such interpretations go beyond the text or original intent of the law. This approach can lead to decisions that significantly alter the legal landscape, as judges take an active role in shaping policy through their rulings.

In contrast to this, other concepts such as strict interpretation of the law, judicial restraint, and adherence to precedent involve a more conservative judicial philosophy that emphasizes the importance of following established laws and court decisions, rather than allowing personal viewpoints to influence legal outcomes. Thus, while judicial activism promotes a more dynamic approach to the interpretation of law, the other options emphasize a more restrained and traditional judicial philosophy.