Judicial interpretation

Judicial interpretation refers to different ways that the judiciary uses to interpret the law, particularly constitutional documents, legislation and frequently used vocabulary. This is an important issue in some common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Canada, because the supreme courts of those nations can overturn laws made by their legislatures via a process called judicial review. 
For example, the United States Supreme Court has decided such topics as the legality of slavery as in the "Dred Scott" decision, and desegregation as in the "Brown v Board of Education" decision, and abortion rights as in the "Roe v Wade" decision. As a result, how justices interpret the constitution, and the ways in which they approach this task has a political aspect. Terms describing types of judicial interpretation can be ambiguous; for example, the term "judicial conservatism" can vary in meaning depending on what is trying to be "conserved". One can look at judicial interpretation along a continuum from judicial restraint to judicial activism, with different viewpoints along the continuum.
Phrases which are regularly used, for example in standard contract documents, may attract judicial interpretation applicable within a particular jurisdiction whenever the same words are used in the same context.
Basis for judicial interpretation.
In the United States, there are different methods to perform judicial interpretation:
Frequently used vocabulary.
Examples of phrases which have been the subject of judicial interpretation include: