Judicial restraint is a judicial interpretation that recommends favoring the status quo in judicial activities; it is the opposite of judicial activism. Aspects of judicial restraint include the principle of stare decisis (that new decisions should be consistent with previous decisions); a conservative approach to standing and a reluctance to grant certiorari; and a tendency to deliver narrowly tailored verdicts, avoiding "unnecessary resolution of broad questions." Judicial restraint may lead a court to avoid hearing a case in the first place. The court may justify its decision by questioning whether the plaintiff has standing; or by refusing to grant certiorari; or by determining that the central issue of the case is a political question better decided by the executive or legislative branches of government; or by determining that the court has no jurisdiction in the matter. Judicial restraint may lead a court to decide in favor of the status quo. In a case of judicial review, this may mean refusing to overturn an existing law unless the law is flagrantly unconstitutional (though what counts as "flagrantly unconstitutional" is itself a matter of some debate). On an appeal, restraint may mean refusing to overturn the lower court's ruling. In general, restraint may mean respecting the principle of stare decisis — that new decisions should show "respect [...] for its own previous decisions." Judicial restraint may lead a court to rule narrowly, avoiding "unnecessary resolution of broad questions" (also known as judicial minimalism.) Restrained rulings are small and case-specific, rather than broad and sweeping. Restrained rulings also hesitate to justify themselves in terms of previously unidentified rights or principles. Examples U.S. Supreme Court Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote: A constitutional case involving stare decisis was South Carolina v. Gathers. In Gathers the Court was urged to reconsider Booth v. Maryland.... [In an example of judicial restraint,] Justice White, who had dissented in the Booth case, declined to overrule it. He joined Justice Brennan's opinion for the Court in Gathers. The four dissenters in Gathers [displaying the opposite of judicial restraint] explicitly called for overruling Booth. Justice Scalia ... argued that a Justice must be free to vote to overrule decisions that he or she feels are not supported by the Constitution itself, as opposed to prior precedents. Roe v. Wade (1973) is frequently cited as an example of judicial activism, but subsequent cases, such as Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt (2016),