Which view suggests that judicial review should be used when societal needs justify its use?

The view that suggests judicial review should be applied when societal needs warrant its use is known as judicial activism. This philosophy posits that courts should take an active role in shaping policy and addressing injustices when the existing laws do not adequately respond to evolving societal issues. Proponents of judicial activism believe that the judiciary has not only the power but also the responsibility to interpret the Constitution in ways that can promote social justice and adapt to changes in society.

Judicial activism allows for a broader interpretation of constitutional provisions, enabling the courts to intervene in legislative matters when necessary to protect individual rights or address pressing social concerns. This perspective can lead to significant legal and social reforms that might not emerge through the legislative process alone, particularly when legislative bodies are unable or unwilling to act.

In contrast, other views like judicial minimalism advocate restraint in judicial decision-making, emphasizing deference to the legislative branch, while strict constructionism focuses on interpreting the Constitution as narrowly as possible, often based on the original meaning of the text at the time it was enacted. Judicial review itself is a process, not a viewpoint, as it refers to the authority of the judiciary to review laws and actions for their constitutionality.