The supreme court might be considered an activist court if it
makes rulings based on the literal wording in the constitution.
cites a number of legal precedents in its decisions.
upholds previous rulings about the constitutionality of laws.
applies an article of the constitution to a new area of law.

applies an article of the Constitution to a new area of law.

Explanation:

Judicial activism is an attitude, or rather a choice in a specific and proactive way that the judiciary has to interpret the Constitution, often expanding its meaning and scope. Thus, the supreme court can be considered an activist court when it applies an article of the Constitution to a new area of ​​law.

We can observe judicial activism, for example, in situations involving the Legislative Power (political class) and civil society, especially when in this relationship social demands will not be effectively met. It is clear that judicial activism is an attempt by the judiciary to have a broader and more intense participation in the realization of constitutional purposes, with greater interference in the scope of the other powers.

D

Explanation:

the fact that could also be added to column b is that during world war ii, specifically between the years 1941 and 1945, japan expanded its territory towards the indonesian territory in what was known later as part of the "pacific war". in that time, japan could conquer the philipines, singapore,   borneo, central java, malang, cebu, sumatra and various other islands of the area, therefore expanding its territory for a brief period of time.

the answer is a the rich and poor get an equal share of the power and wealth

hope this

with love