If a judge interprets a statute based on congressional intent, which judicial philosophy is being used?

The correct answer highlights the approach taken by a judge when interpreting a statute based on congressional intent, which emphasizes understanding the law as it aligns with the intentions of the lawmakers. This method reflects judicial passivism, where the focus is on interpreting the law strictly according to what the legislature intended when creating the statute, rather than shaping or influencing the law through broader interpretations or personal beliefs.

Judicial passivism prioritizes the significance of legislative intent and aims to apply the law without injecting personal views or broader interpretations. By adhering closely to congressional intent, the judge applies the law as it is written, ensuring that the judicial interpretation remains aligned with the democratic process and legislative authority.

Other options relate to different philosophies or processes of judicial interpretation. Judicial activism reflects a more active role for judges in interpreting laws, often leading to broader implications or shifts in policy based on judicial rulings. Precedent refers to relying on previous court decisions to guide ruling in similar cases, and judicial review pertains to the power of courts to examine the constitutionality of legislative and executive actions. None of these concepts specifically ties back to the interpretive method centered on congressional intent as judicial passivism does.