There are different kinds of judicial philosophy in how to interpret the law.Outline the theories of judicial restraint and judicial activism.Discuss an example of the Supreme Court employing judicial activism.

There are three components to this question.
a.Judicial restraint: Judicial restraint is a judicial philosophy whose adherents refuse to go beyond the clear words of the Constitution in interpreting the document's meaning.Advocates of this philosophy also believe that courts should defer to the views of Congress when interpreting federal statutes.
b.Judicial activism: Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy that posits that the Court should go beyond the words of the Constitution or a statute to consider the broader societal implications of its decisions.It is the alternative to a philosophy of judicial restraint.Activist judges sometimes strike out in new directions,promulgating new interpretations or inventing new legal and constitutional concepts when they believe these to be socially desirable.Advocates of judicial activism do not believe courts should show excessive deference to legislative bodies.
c.Example of judicial activism: There are many possible examples.Roe v.Wade was based on a constitutional right to privacy that is not found in the words of the Constitution but was,rather,from the Court's prior decision in Griswold v.Connecticut.The Supreme Court argued that the right to privacy was implied by other constitutional provisions.In this instance of judicial activism,the Court knew the result it wanted to achieve and was not afraid to make the law conform to the desired outcome.