What is the judicial philosophy that emphasizes interpreting law based on the original intent of the framers?

The judicial philosophy that emphasizes interpreting law based on the original intent of the framers is grounded in the concept of judicial restraint. This approach advocates that judges should limit their own power by adhering closely to the plain meaning of the law and the intentions of those who wrote it. By focusing on the original context and meaning when the law was enacted, supporters of judicial restraint argue that this preserves the stability and predictability of the law while respecting the democratic process.

Judicial restraint is often contrasted with more activist approaches that allow judges to interpret the law in a way that considers contemporary values and societal changes, potentially leading to more expansive interpretations. Those who favor judicial restraint believe that it is the role of the legislature, not the courts, to adapt laws to modern circumstances. This philosophy provides a foundational perspective for understanding how judges might approach cases that involve constitutional interpretation or statutory law.

In terms of the other choices, judicial activism suggests a more flexible interpretation of the law, allowing judges to consider broader implications. Legal positivism focuses primarily on the law as it is written, rather than its moral implications, while progressive law tends to prioritize social justice and reform, often advocating for changes in the law based on current societal needs. Thus, judicial restraint is the philosophy that best aligns