Final answer:
Judicial activism substitutes policy views, defends individual rights; judicial restraint limits own power, defers decisions, upholds precedents.
Explanation:
Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy where judges are willing to substitute their policy views for the actions of other branches of government, aiming to defend individual rights and liberties through their decisions. In contrast, judicial restraint is a theory that encourages judges to limit their own power, deferring decisions to elected branches and focusing on a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Some justices support activism to broaden liberties, while others advocate for restraint to uphold established precedents and defer to legislative decisions. Both concepts play crucial roles in shaping the judiciary's approach to interpreting and applying the law.
Learn more about Judicial activism and judicial restraint here:
https://brainly.com/question/29545866
