Passage: Judicial restraint is an interpretive philosophy that urges judges to refrain from overturning laws unless they are clearly unconstitutional. It is rooted in the belief that in a democracy, policy-making should be left to the accountable branches—the legislature and the executive. Proponents argue that when judges strike down laws based on their own moral or political judgments, they diminish the prestige of the judiciary and undermine the democratic process. They suggest that the Court should defer to legislative judgments on 'debatable' questions of social policy. Critics, on the other hand, argue that judicial restraint often amounts to judicial abdication. They contend that the Court's primary duty is to protect the Constitution and that 'restraint' in the face of constitutional violations is a failure of that duty. This debate reflects a fundamental disagreement over whether the judiciary's primary role is to respect democratic outcomes or to enforce constitutional limits.