A Supreme Court justice who interprets

provisions of the U.S. Constitution in
a way that takes current social values
into consideration is practicing which?

1.de novo review
2.judicial self-restraint
3. stare decisis
4. judicial activism

Isn't it judicial activism?

Yes. That's judicial activism.

To answer this question, you can use your understanding of the different approaches that Supreme Court justices may take when interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

1. De novo review: This term refers to a review that is conducted "afresh" or with a completely new perspective, without giving deference to prior decisions. It is not directly related to considering social values.

2. Judicial self-restraint: This concept suggests that judges should exercise caution and limit their own power in order to respect the decisions made by elected officials and the democratic process. It is not aligned with considering current social values.

3. Stare decisis: This Latin term, meaning "to stand by things decided," refers to the practice of adhering to prior court decisions and upholding precedent. While it promotes consistency and predictability in the legal system, it does not necessarily prioritize current social values.

4. Judicial activism: This term describes a judicial approach where justices, in interpreting the Constitution, actively expand and apply its provisions to address contemporary social issues and promote social change. Judicial activism focuses on considering current social values and adapting the Constitution's interpretation accordingly.

Therefore, the correct answer to the question "A Supreme Court justice who interprets provisions of the U.S. Constitution in a way that takes current social values into consideration is practicing which?" is "4. judicial activism."