Judicial restraint is important to ensure the Constitution does not get changed through judicial activism.  The act of “activism” as defined by dictionary.com, “the doctrine or practice of vigorous action or involvement as a means of achieving political or other goals, sometimes by demonstrations, protests, etc.” should not be a part of judicial review. 

It would be hard not to let your own ideals and philosophy become part of your reasoning in trying to get others to believe what you believe, but law is not about what a few judges believe.  This is the reason judicial restraint should be practiced in most if not all cases.  Judges’ decisions should be based solely on the letter of the law.  The Supreme Court must not set precedents based on judicial activism.  The more laws interpreted by judges the less the constitutionality of the Constitution will be recognized.

It is understandable that sometimes laws need to be changed, but they need to go through Congress and not be set, stretched, or envisioned by Judges.  Judges need to only look at the “legal” aspect of things and let everyone else (meaning Congress and the American people) worry about the political and social aspect of things.