Should Courts Use Judicial Activism Or Judicial Restraint?

Should the courts use judicial activism or judicial restraint? This is a major point in every court case, mainly supreme court cases, of how should the judges determine the outcome. Should the judges go strictly based off what the law states or should they interpret the law according to how they believe will be correct. Some notable supreme court cases being, Brown vs Board of Education, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, and Korematsu v. US. Most siding with judicial activism over restraint, due to the public’s views changing along with the judges changing. I believe choosing judicial activism is the best for society, because their ideals reflect more in the laws that are passed. Rather than choosing to hold on to old beliefs that may not reflect the public's views.
Judicial restraint is when the courts are reluctant to overturn judicial precedents, or when the judges believe the law is clearly unconstitutional, meaning there is little room for them to argue that it is constitutional or strictly based on what the law states. The reason for the debate between which should be used more frequently is obvious, because they are opposites. One says to bend the law to what time it’s being looked at in and the other wants the law to be used word for word or have little room to be debated what it says. However, with different forms of media the views between the two get twisted. They usually show judicial activism as being the justice choosing what would benefit them most or based on their political views. And showing judicial restraint as being strictly based on the wording of the