What philosophy allows judges to make decisions based on the spirit of the times?

Judicial activism is a philosophy in which judges interpret the law in a way that reflects contemporary values and the evolving norms of society. This approach allows judges to exercise their discretion to expand rights, address social injustices, or adapt legal principles to current circumstances. Rather than strictly adhering to the letter of the law or relying solely on precedent, judicial activism emphasizes the importance of context and the social implications of judicial decisions.

In contrast, judicial restraint advocates for a more conservative approach where courts defer to the decisions made by the legislative and executive branches, favoring the intention of the framers of the Constitution and adhering to established precedent. A dissenting opinion refers to a judge's expression of disagreement with the majority's ruling, while stare decisis pertains to the legal principle of respecting precedents set by previous court decisions. Therefore, the essence of judicial activism is its responsiveness to the spirit of the times, making it the correct answer in this context.