Question

judicial restraint to adherent to advocates of judicial activism. those who advocate judicial restraint strictly adhere to the letter of the laws whenever possible, supporting the validity of those 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 judicial activist typically interprets the constitution and laws based on

the fundamental intent of the text rather than the wording.
popular opinion on the issue at the time it was passed.
current popular opinion on the issue.
the original meaning of the text.

Explanation:

The text states that judicial activism advocates take a broader view and attempt to discern fundamental principles underlying legislation (whether spelled out or not). This implies looking at the intent rather than just the letter (wording) of the law. Popular opinion (at time of passage or current) isn't mentioned as a basis. Judicial restraint adheres to the letter (original meaning/wording), which is the opposite of activism.

Answer:

The fundamental intent of the text rather than the wording.