Compare the philosophies of judicial activism and judicial restraint and explain how each affects the separation of powers

The following is a comparison between judicial activism and judicial restraint: Judicial Activism: This concept refers to the use of the right dispensed to the Supreme Court by the United States Constitution of intervening in the procedures of the passage of laws if the court believes in its own conscience that the law is unconstitutional. The practice of judicial activism enables the Supreme Court to act as the highest authority in deciding the constitutionality of laws. This concentrates the entire power in the hands of the Supreme Court and hinders the idea of separation of power. Judicial restraint: This concept refers to the choice of the Supreme Court to refrain itself from taking suo moto stands in matters regarding the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of laws passed by Congress. This restraint followed by the Supreme Court helps the other two branches of the government practice unrestricted power which is not a good trait for democracy.

Alright so, i got your question but not the rights listed below. can you tell me them? ( somebody don't delete this i'm just asking ; -; )