So let me see if I’m getting your differences down correctly using some of your posted information mixed with some of mine:
Judicial Review...
In other words: the concept of judicial review gives the court of law the power to interpret the letter of the constitution and decide if a legislation is in violation of it and subsequently pronounce it invalid.
“Substantive Due Process” is often associated with “Judicial Review”.
If one likes the outcome of a decision it’s called “Judicial Review”.
If one doesn’t like the outcome a decision is often called “Substantive Due Process”. A lot of people think SDP is Judicial Activism. Or, if you will, the SC taking the law into their own hands. This is often regarded as “Judicial Activism”. Or as some believe “the SC taking the law into their own hands.”
—————-
Judicial restraint
A). Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power.
B). 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.
C). Judicial restraint is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism.”
Your interpretations are...not quite true.
(How do I explain what it takes several years of instruction via Law School for even lawyers to learn all in the space of a 5000 character forum response?).
A court of initial jurisdiction (the court in which the issue is first tried) is supposed to apply the law as was enacted via the Legislative process.
In determining how to apply each law to a case at bar, the Court is suppose to apply various Rules of Procedure and a particular principle of interpreting the issue, in this order;
1. Plain Meaning, i.e. the law means exactly what it says. "The plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_meaning_rule
Essentially, apply the law as written as long as it is clearly understood.
2. Legislative Intent, i.e. if the law itself is unclear, review the legislative proceedings to determine what the Legislative Body intended the law to be employee. "The judiciary may attempt to assess legislative intent where legislation is ambiguous, or does not appear to directly or adequately address a particular issue, or when there appears to have been a legislative drafting error."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislative_intent
3. Golden Rule or Rule of Ambiguity, i.e. if the law creates an absurdity in the case at bar, the judge can interpret the law as it applies to the facts of the case.
It is when a decision from a court of initial jurisdiction (determining jurisdiction is a whole other topic) is appealed that it begins the Judicial Review process.
It is here where all aspects of the case can be examined to determine whether the law was applied properly, due process and evidentiary rules were applied correctly, etc.
It is also where issues of State and Federal Constitutional rights may be involved/considered.
Moreover, a decision in the case can set either a binding or a convincing precedent, depending on the level of court and area of jurisdiction the ruling appears in. The higher the level, the more binding on lower courts in the chain of judicial review until we reach the SCOTUS, where all decisions are typically (needs more explanation than space allows) binding on lower courts.
For a layman's list see here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_interpretation
So yes, issues may arise based on old or new law (as happened with Miranda, Roe, etc.) that requires the appellate review process to address Constitutional issues of substantive due process.
The difference is that
in Judicial Activism judges take any and every opportunity to turn the review process into a platform for their own interpretations of Constitutional principals, which must then be validated/invalidated by SCOTUS, while
Judicial Restraint advises this should only be done when there is a clear issue which needs application of Constitutional interpretation.
