Answer :
Final answer:
Judicial activism involves courts changing public policy by overturning laws made by Congress or states, while judicial restraint focuses on deferring decisions to elected branches. Judicial review empowers courts to review the constitutionality of actions by other branches, impacting policy through interpretations.
Explanation:
Judicial activism is the term that best describes a Supreme Court that demonstrates a willingness to change public policy by not hesitating to overturn laws made by Congress or by the states. This approach involves judges substituting their policy views for actions or inaction of other branches of government.
Judicial restraint, on the other hand, involves judges deferring decisions to elected branches of government, focusing more on strict interpretation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. This philosophy aims at limiting the exercise of judicial power and striking down laws only when they are clearly unconstitutional.
The concept of judicial review is essential here, as it grants the courts the power to review actions taken by other branches of government and rule on their constitutionality, playing a crucial role in shaping public policy through court rulings and interpretations.
Learn more about Judicial activism vs. judicial restraint in shaping public policy here:
https://brainly.com/question/27740131
