Judicial restraint advocates that judicial review should be used in what manner?

Judicial restraint is a philosophy that encourages courts to limit the exercise of their power and to avoid overturning laws or decisions unless absolutely necessary. Advocates of judicial restraint assert that judges should be reluctant to interfere with the legislative and executive branches unless there is a clear violation of the Constitution or law. This perspective emphasizes the importance of preserving established legal precedents and respecting the roles of elected officials.

The correct answer reflects this principle by suggesting that judicial review should be applied "only in unusual cases." This means that the judiciary should exercise restraint, intervening primarily when there are significant legal, constitutional, or rights issues that warrant such action. By doing so, courts adhere to the concept of separation of powers, ensuring that they do not overstep their bounds and maintain an appropriate balance with the other branches of government.

Contextually, the other options do not align with the idea of judicial restraint. A proactive approach for social justice, for instance, would involve judges taking an active role in shaping policy, which is contrary to the principles of restraint. Similarly, using judicial review for any case with potential public interest or in all cases without exception would expand judicial power beyond what advocates of restraint support. The emphasis on intervention in "unusual" cases highlights the cautious and