Compare and contrast between judicial restraint and judicial activism

What will be an ideal response?

Judicial review is the power to determine whether a law passed by the legislature violates the Constitution. When individual justices exercise this power of judicial review, they do so with different philosophies and attitudes. A judge who believes in judicial restraint believes that the three branches are coequal, and the judiciary should refrain from determining the constitutionality of an act of Congress unless absolutely necessary. These judges tend to believe that social, economic, and political change should result from the political process, not from judicial action. They consequently give great deference to actions of the state and federal legislatures. These judges are much less likely to overturn an existing precedent. They tend to focus much more on the facts than on questioning whether the law should be changed. They tend to uphold lower-court decisions unless those decisions are clearly wrong on the facts.
In contrast, judicial activists tend to see a need for the courts to take an active role in encouraging political, economic, and social change, because the political process is often too slow to bring about necessary changes. They believe that constitutional issues must be decided within the context of today's society and that the framers meant for the Constitution to be an evolving document. Judicial activists are much less wedded to precedent and are more result oriented. They are much more likely to listen to arguments about what result is good for society. Activist judges have been responsible for many social changes, especially in the civil rights area.