Question

a court decides to interpret a law in a way that encourages the limitation of a judge’s power. the court relies on similar past rulings and stays very close to the literal meaning of the constitution in its approach. this court is engaging in judicial
restraint.
review.
activism.
precedent.

Explanation:

To solve this, we analyze each option:

• Judicial restraint: Involves judges limiting their power, following the literal Constitution and past rulings (precedents). This matches the court's actions here.
• Judicial review: Is the power to declare laws unconstitutional, not about limiting judicial power or literal interpretation.
• Judicial activism: Involves judges using personal views to interpret the law broadly, which is the opposite of limiting power and strict interpretation.
• Precedent: Is the use of past rulings, but the question is about the judicial approach (restraint uses precedent, but the approach here is restraint).

Answer:

A. restraint