The idea that courts should not be heavily involved in lawmaking, but rather should only rule in cases where the constitutionality is clear is known as a. judicial restraint. b. judicial activism. c. judicial reform. d. judicial review.

Answer: judicial restraint

Explanation:

Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional, though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate. Judicial restraint is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism. In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Judicially restrained judges respect stare decisis, the principle of upholding established precedent handed down by past judges