Question

judges vary in their approach to legislation along a broad continuum, from advocates of judicial restraint to advocates of judicial activism. those who advocate judicial restraint strictly adhere to the letter of the laws whenever possible, supporting the validity of these laws as much as possible. those who advocate judicial activism take a broader view and attempt to discern the fundamental principles underlying legislation, whether those principles have been specifically spelled out in the laws or not. therefore, activist judges are much more likely to strike down federal legislation when such legislation is thought to violate the principles underlying the u.s. constitution.
in effect, activist judges make their own laws by selecting which laws will stand and which will not. advocates of judicial activism often point to what they consider to be past judicial successes in advancing civil rights and liberties, thus encouraging judges to remedy injustices wherever they find them. those who favor judicial restraint caution judges about undermining democratic processes by substituting their own judgments for those of the peoples elected representatives.
read the excerpt from the reference article on judicial activism and restraint. a judge who exercises judicial restraint typically interprets the constitution and laws based on
○ the fundamental intent of the text rather than the wording.
○ current popular opinion on the issue.
○ the original meaning of the text.
○ popular opinion on the issue at the time it was passed.

Explanation:

The text states that advocates of judicial restraint "strictly adhere to the letter of the laws whenever possible". This implies they focus on the original meaning (the "letter") of the text (laws/Constitution) rather than broader interpretations (like intent which is more of an activist approach). Current or past popular opinion isn't mentioned as a basis for judicial restraint in the given excerpt.

Answer:

The original meaning of the text.