Judicial activism is the assertion (or, sometimes, the unjustified assertion) of the power of judicial review to set aside government acts. Judicial restraint is the refusal to strike down such acts, leaving the issue to ordinary politics.

Explanation: The judicial restraint is basically the power of the judges to delcare a ruling or a bill unconstitutional, this is basically the power of judges to stop a rulin or a law, but law experts believe that the best way to enforce this power is to do it with small rulings that are done to specific cases.

Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate.

In Federalist No. 78, Hamilton said that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three branches because it had “no influence over either the sword or the purse, It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” Federalist No.

According to Hamilton the purposes of the judicial branch is to “declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void”, meaning to rule any laws or policies not in accordance with the Constitution, unconstitutional.

The federal courts’ most important power is that of judicial review, the authority to interpret the Constitution. When federal judges rule that laws or government actions violate the spirit of the Constitution, they profoundly shape public policy.

Congress