A court decides to interpret a law in a way that encourages the limitation of a judge’s power. The court relies on similar past rulings and stays very close to the literal meaning of the Constitution in its approach.
This court is engaging in judicial:
a) restraint.
b) review.
c) activism.
d) precedent.

Precedent refers to a court ruling quoted as a constitutional power for the legal principle encapsulated in it. The decision is made in the judicial precedent through observing the related cases that have occurred in the past. The precedent doctrine, which is also known as stare judgment, i.e. abide by the ruling, is founded on the doctrine that it should be similar cases should be decided alike. There is a concept called stare decision principle that claims that the ruling of the court serves as precedent to be followed in similar cases in the future.

Martebi Martebi · Answer 2 · 2021-09-27T17:10:07+02:00

This court is engaging in judicial restraint

from better understanding let's explain what judicial restraint means

Judicial restraint is simply concerned with a judge not forcing or inputing his or her own ideas (preferences) into any said legal cases, proceedings and rulings. The Judges are known to show judicial restraint only if theyare indecisive or hesitant to remove (strike down) laws that are not really unconstitutional
it is a type of judicial interpretation. that is it is a type of how the justice system interpret the law

from the above, we can therefore say that the answer This court is engaging in judicial restraint is correct.

learn more about judge restraint from:

https://brainly.com/question/15452280