How does judicial activism compare to judicial restraint?

Judicial activism is essentially the opposite of judicial restraint.

If a court is exercising judicial activism, it means the court is actively making rulings that will change the laws that have been established by other branches of government, and even sometimes by other courts. The use of the word activism refers to the belief that the judges who behave in this manner are serving as activists who are pushing forward personal or political agendas.

Judicial restraint, on the other hand, means that the members of the judicial branch are restraining themselves from making decisions that could end up changing policies or laws.

Explanation:

first of all, it's important to say that the book we shall not be moved, written by joan dash, is about the first strike of women in the united states in the year 1909. the best historical detail to clarify the reader's undertanding is the phrase "general strike". this strike involved women working at a garment factory who decided to protest   long working hours, low wages and brutal conditions. this strike became known as "the new york shirtwaist strike" or "the uprising of the 20,000". the strike mostly involved jewish women who did not speak english or who had a basic knowledge of the english language. finally, the strike went on from november 1909 until february 1910.

sounds good to me mate!