Which judicial philosophy supports the idea that judges should adapt the Constitution to current values?

Judicial activism is the philosophy that promotes the idea that judges should interpret the Constitution in a way that considers the contemporary values and needs of society. This approach contrasts with strict interpretations that seek to apply the Constitution as it was originally written or meant at the time of its drafting. Those who advocate for judicial activism believe that the judiciary should play an active role in shaping social policies and addressing injustices, thus ensuring that the law evolves alongside society. This method allows the courts to take into account changes in societal norms, cultural developments, and various social challenges when making decisions, which can lead to the expansion of civil rights and liberties.

Other judicial philosophies, such as originalism, focus on maintaining the intentions of the Founding Fathers, while judicial restraint emphasizes limiting the role of the judiciary in political matters and deferring to the legislative branch. Constitutionalism refers to the idea that government authority is derived from a constitution, focusing more on the structure of government rather than the adaptation of legal interpretations to reflect modern values.