What does the term "judicial activism" refer to?

Judicial activism refers to a judicial philosophy in which judges interpret the law in a way that embraces broader meanings and aims to protect and enhance individual rights or social justice. This approach often involves the courts taking an active role in addressing societal issues and can lead to significant changes in law and policy. Judges who engage in judicial activism may prioritize personal liberties and interpretations of the Constitution that extend beyond the original intent of the framers, striving to adapt to contemporary societal values and needs.

In contrast, the other options indicate more conservative or restrained judicial approaches. For instance, strict interpretation of laws focuses on adhering closely to the text rather than considering broader implications. Refraining from political issues indicates a reluctance to engage in matters that might be seen as politically charged, while the principle of judicial restraint emphasizes caution and deference to the legislative branch, advocating for limits on judicial power in shaping policy. Therefore, the choice that captures the essence of judicial activism is one that involves courts making decisions aimed at protecting individual rights.