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:

• Restraint: Judicial restraint involves judges limiting their power, interpreting laws narrowly (close to literal meaning) and relying on past rulings (stare decisis). This matches the description.
• Review: Judicial review is about courts checking if laws/actions are constitutional, not about limiting judicial power or literal interpretation. Eliminate.
• Activism: Judicial activism involves judges interpreting laws broadly to advance policy, which is the opposite of limiting power and literal interpretation. Eliminate.
• Precedent: Precedent (stare decisis) is using past rulings, but the question is about the judicial approach (limiting power, literal interpretation), not just relying on precedent. The approach here is restraint, which uses precedent but is defined by limiting power. Eliminate.

Answer:

A. restraint