In which legal philosophy do supporters argue judges should follow societal changes?

Judicial activism is the legal philosophy that supports the idea that judges should interpret the law in the context of contemporary societal changes and evolving standards. Proponents of judicial activism argue that the judiciary has a role in advancing social justice and adapting legal interpretations to reflect the current values and dynamics of society. This approach often involves judges taking a more proactive role in shaping the law to address injustices or societal needs rather than strictly adhering to precedent or the original intent of the law.

Supporters of judicial activism see the judiciary as a mechanism to bring about positive change, particularly in cases involving civil rights, social issues, and the protection of minority rights, where legislation may lag behind societal needs. This approach contrasts with judicial restraint, where judges are encouraged to limit their own power and defer to the legislative branch, believing that elected representatives should make policy decisions.

Legal realism, another aspect of the discussion, posits that the law should be understood in light of the real-world impact it has and how it is applied, but it does not specifically advocate for judges to adjust to societal changes in the same active way that judicial activism does. Original jurisdiction, on the other hand, pertains to the authority of a court to hear a case for the first time, rather than a philosophy